Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

SPECIAL AREAS.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the amount of direct employment provided in the Scottish Special Areas as a result of financial assistance from the Special Areas Fund?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot): I regret that it is not possible to supply this information. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour pointed out in reply to a question by the hon. Member for the Blaydon Division (Mr. Whiteley) on the filth instant the purpose of the Special Areas Act is not to provide direct employment but to stimulate the economic recovery of the areas and so improve employment prospects.

Mr. Mathers: Cannot even an approximate indication be given of the effect of the Special Areas Commissioner's activities in Scotland?

Mr. Elliot: I cannot give an exact estimate, and an approximate estimate would be merely a guess.

Mr. R. Gibson: Are deductions made from the money handed over to the men directly employed for national health and unemployment insurance?

Mr. Speaker: That question does not arise out of the answer.

FISHING INDUSTRY.

Mr. James Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that there is great hardship among fishermen on the Clyde coast owing to the closing of ports at the week-ends and to

the dumping of herring and the lack of proper marketing of them; and whether he will, in the near future, examine the position and take such steps as are likely to ease the serious situation in which these fishermen find themselves?

Mr. Elliot: I am aware that the earnings of the herring fishermen of the Clyde areas have recently been poor, but I am informed that this has resulted mainly from the small size and soft quality of a great part of the herring taken and the consequent difficulty of marketing the catch. The restriction of fishing operations has been imposed by a local committee appointed by the Herring Industry Board and consisting of fishermen and other members of the industry. I am informed that the object of the restriction was to prevent wasteful fishing and further dislocation of the industry. I am informed that an improvement in the position is expected to result from the purchase of herring in this area for export fresh to Germany, which I understand began again last week.

Mr. Brown: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what is required is a widening of the mesh so that so many immature fish are not destroyed, for that is dangerous to the Clyde fishermen?

Mr. T. Johnston: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of my right hon. Friend's question, whether he will personally examine the position? He is throwing the industry on to the Herring Industry Board, and, as he knows, the board is not very popular in the fishing industry in Scotland.

Mr. Elliot: I will certainly examine the position myself, but I have already answered the question by indicating that the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, and I have the position of the herring industry and possible legislation under review.

Mr. Brown: Surely the right hon. Gentleman knows that a great deal of hardship exists, especially on the Ayrshire seaboard and at Campbelltown, and that something ought to be done?

Mr. Gibson: Is there a movement among the Clyde fishermen for the opening of the ports at the week-end?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he


has any report to make upon his recent meeting with the deputation from the herring industry; whether he has decided to take action upon their recommendations; and, if so, what action is contemplated?

Mr. Elliot: The proposals which were made by the deputation last week for financial assistance to the herring industry would require legislation. I am now examining them in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.

Mr. Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the urgency of these recommendations in view of the rather critical state of the industry?

Mr. Elliot: Certainly.

Sir Edmund Finlay: In view of the extreme importance of this legislation, will my right hon. Friend make no statement until the whole question has been properly threshed out?

PITTENWEEM HARBOUR.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has considered the letter from the provost and town clerk of Pittenweem drawing attention to the unsatisfactory and dangerous state of Pittenweem harbour and the refusal of the Fishery Board for Scotland to make a grant for improvements; and whether; since the Fishery Board are unable to support the scheme prepared by their engineer he will instruct the board to make another survey of the harbour, with a view to preparing a less costly scheme, which will render the harbour safe and justify a substantial grant from the funds available to the board?

Mr. Elliot: I have considered the letter referred to by my hon. Friend. I am informed by the Fishery Board for Scotland that the fullest consideration has been given to the possibility of preparing a less costly scheme, but that they are advised that nothing short of the full scheme would effect any material improvement at this harbour. As regard the full scheme, the opinion of the board is that the benefit which might be derived from it would not be commensurate with the cost involved.

Mr. Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that even on the authority of the Fishery Board this harbour is most dangerous to life and property, and that it cannot, therefore, be neglected; and will he not persuade them to reconsider their decision in view of the serious nature of this complaint?

Mr. Kennedy: What sum is involved in this scheme, and may I ask on what grounds the scheme was rejected by the right hon. Gentleman's Department in view of the fact that it was prepared by the consulting engineer to the Fishery Board, and has the unanimous approval not only of the local fishermen but of the local town council?

Mr. Elliot: The estimated cost of the scheme is £8,400. As to the suggestion of my hon. Friend that this should be further examined, I will undertake to examine it further, but I do not want to hold our unreasonable hopes.

Mr. Kennedy: Have not larger sums been approved by the Minister involving expenditure at fishery centres of less importance than the harbour concerned here?

Mr. Elliot: Larger sums have, of course, been approved, but the landings of herring, for instance, at this port are some 18,700 cwts., against Anstruther 160,800; and although the quantity of white fish is larger, one must take into account the probable economic return from a harbour in estimating whether expenditure is desirable or not.

Mr. Stewart: While accepting my right hon. Friend's latter remarks, may I ask him to bear in mind that this is an all-the-year-round harbour while the others are not of that nature?

MEALS IN SCHOOLS, GLASGOW.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of school children in Glasgow, medically defined as suffering from malnutrition, receiving free meals at school for the years ending September, 1936, and 1937, respectively?

Mr. Elliot: The numbers of children in Glasgow receiving free meals at school in the two years referred to were 8,105 and 8,154, respectively. I am informed that while many of these children are


placed on the free meals register as a result of medical inspection, the majority are so placed on the recommendation of the head teacher and class teacher. The statistics available do not enable me to state the numbers in each category.

Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for the past three years at least the figures of children in Glasgow suffering from malnutrition have not dropped below 8,000, and will he as Secretary of State for Scotland initiate an inquiry into the question of malnutrition in Glasgow?

Mr. Elliot: No, it would be wrong to have a special inquiry into malnutrition in Glasgow. Children who are receiving free meals exist in many other cities and the whole problem must be treated as one.

Mr. Davidson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, then, whether he is prepared to extend the scope of an inquiry so as to embrace malnutrition in Scotland?

Mr. Thorne: Do I understand that before any children can get free meals they must he medically examined?

Mr. Elliot: The point of my answer was that they need not he medically examined.

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the total number of air-raid precautions tests carried out in Scotland up to date?

Mr. Elliot: No general air-raid precautions exercises have so far been carried cut, but it is hoped that they will be arranged when local schemes of air-raid precautions are further advanced.

Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many military experts agree that air raids of the future will not be confined to one particular part of the country, but that different places will be attacked at the same time; and does he not think it necessary that some move should be made to protect the people of Scotland?

Mr. Elliot: That shows how desirable it is to pass the Bill at present before the House.

Mr. Davidson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it should have been done long ago?

SCOTTISH INDUSTRIAL ESTATES COMPANY, LIMITED.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how much money has been given to the Scottish Economic Committee from public funds to finance the purchase and development of the Scottish Industrial Estates, Limited, at North Millington; what are the subsidies and other financial aids given to the new companies; is the financing done direct or through the agency of a bank and, if the latter, what bank is entrusted with the transactions; and how many new industries are likely to be started and how many men and women will he employed?

Mr. Elliot: The sums required for the purposes mentioned in the first part of the question are advanced directly by the Special Areas Commissioner to the Scottish Industrial Estates Company, Limited, the sums so far paid amounting to £72,213; no sum has been advanced through the Scottish Economic Committee. With regard to the financial aids to new undertakings, I am sending the hon. Member a publication issued jointly by the Special Area Commissioners in the two countries, which indicates the forms of assistance that are available. I am informed that any payments by the Commissioner are made direct to the undertaking concerned. While it is not possible to say how many new industries are likely to be started or how many persons will be employed, I am informed that factories on the estate have already been let to 18 undertakings, and that a large number of inquiries are at present before the company.

Mr. Davidson: I ask in the question whether it is done directly or through the agency of a bank. Can I have a reply?

Mr. Elliot: I have said that it is done direct to the undertaking concerned.

Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Chairman of the Scottish Industrial Estates, Limited, is also Chairman of the Union Bank of Scotland who has been very prominent in the question of anti-trade unionism; and can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance


that this anti-trade unionism will not extend to the Scottish Industrial Estates, Limited?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a relevant question.

Mr. Davidson: I would like to ask why the question of the attitude of the Chairman of the Scottish Estates, Limited, is not relevant to the future of the company?

Mr. Speaker: Obviously the question which the hon. Member is putting as a supplementary question will need a separate question, for it goes far beyond the question on the Paper.

Mr. Davidson: I was only asking whether the Secretary of State was aware of these facts, and I could have received a reply in the affirmative or the negative.

Mr. Speaker: That is quite true, but a great many questions are put beginning, "Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact," and they merely give information.

FARM WORKERS' COTTAGES.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has formed any estimate of the number of farm-workers' cottages on farms which may be replaced under the provisions of Part II of the Housing (Agricultural Population) (Scotland) B ill?

Mr. Elliot: It is difficult to form any close estimate of how many of the 33,500 farm workers' cottages will be replaced under Part II of the Bill until local authorities have surveyed the whole position in detail. On the information at present available, however, it would appear that the number of new cottages likely to be erected with assistance under Part II of the Bill in replacement of existing farm cottages might be put very roughly at 3,000.

BEET SUGAR FACTORY.

Mr. Leonard: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the minimum requirements in sugar-beet to allow the Scottish sugar factory to function economically; the actual production of sugar-beet in Scotland; the amount of assistance paid per cwt. to the factory during 1936; and the average weekly raw sugar price?

Mr. Elliot: The Sugar Commission, in their annual report, state that the mini-

mum economic requirement of the Cupar factory may be taken at about 15,000 acres, representing approximately 125,000 tons of beet on the average yield for the Cupar factory in 1936. The total. quantity of beet delivered to Cupar in that year was 61,138 tons, of which 56,637 tons was Scottish and 4,501 tons English grown; the average amount of assistance paid per cwt. of sugar to Cupar was 4s. 11.4d. and the average weekly raw sugar price 4s. 9.6d.

Mr. Leonard: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the Scottish acreage?

Mr. Elliot: I think I gave it in terms of beet. I think, as I said, that 15,000 acres is the minimum requirement desired, but it is in the order of 10,000 acres. In 1936 the area was 6,760 acres, and in 1937 about 7,200 acres approximately.

Mr. Leonard: Does the right hon. Gentleman consider that it is advisable to continue spending public money on an organisation functioning in this way—15,000 acres being the minimum and only some 8,000 acres being grown?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is it not a fact that this House intended that the benefits of the sugar beet subsidy should be spread over the country and that Scottish growers have steadily extended their acreage?

Mr. Elliot: My hon. Friend the Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) is correct in his statement that the acreage in Scotland is increasing, and I should be very sorry to see this industry suppressed in our country.

NURSES (COMMITTEE OF INQUIRY).

Mr. Leonard: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in the appointment of the committee in 1935 that has now the duty of inquiring into the recruitment for and conditions obtaining in the nursing profession, inquiries through the usual channels took place as to the composition of the committee before appointment; and whether he will consider the advisability of adding to its numbers by the appointment of a representative nurse below the status of matron?

Mr. Elliot: Inquiries through the usual channels were made when the committee


was originally appointed in 1934. In asking the committee to undertake a further investigation I felt it desirable to make the least possible change in its membership.

Mr. Leonard: Without casting any aspersions on the two ladies who are on the committee, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be desirable to introduce on to the committee someone under the status of a matron, in order to consider the details of nursing and the causes which are preventing persons coming forward to join that profession?

Mr. Elliot: The committee which was originally appointed went very thoroughly into this question, and I thought it would not be desirable to add members who were unacquainted with the previous discussions, in view of the delay that would cause in the committee reaching conclusions.

Mr. Leonard: Is not this an entirely different matter? It is a matter of recruitment and conditions and what it is that is preventing recruits coming forward. Is there anyone more competent to consider the conditions which are preventing recruits coming forward than one who is working under the conditions which prevail at present?

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Royal College of Nursing, which is, I think, one of the usual channels referred to, take the view that there ought to be no interference by the legislature with conditions as between nurses and hospitals, and that conditions which were good enough for the old brigade should be good enough for younger nurses?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

RELIEF FUNDS.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has given consideration to the resolution dealing with the administration of colliery disaster relief funds forwarded by the city council of Stoke-on-Trent; and is it intended to institute legislation to deal with the funds in order to secure a uniform scale of payments, control of administration, and to enable the unused balances to be available at once for colliery disasters?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative. In my reply to the City Council of Stoke-on-Trent, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy, I have indicated some of the principal difficulties involved in their proposal, and in this connection I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to a question by the hon. Member for Tottenham, North (Mr. R. C. Morrison) on 12th November last year, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. Smith: Will the Minister give further consideration to this matter, and consider also the calling together of the Mine Workers' Federation, the colliery proprietors and the committee of management of this body?

Captain Crookshank: Perhaps the hon. Member will first give consideration tc the documents which I am sending to him.

WAGONS.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been drawn to collieries having to retard production owing to a shortage of wagons; and will steps be taken to obviate this?

Captain Crookshank: I have only had one such case recently brought to my notice and, while neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport have statutory powers to deal with the matter, I am inquiring whether there is any action I can usefully take.

Mr. James Griffiths: Is it not now time for the Government to take the matter in hand, seeing that it is quite 20 years since the Sankey Commission recommended that wagons should be pooled?

INSPECTORS' DEPENDANTS (PENSIONS AND AWARDS).

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Secretary for Mines what compensation, gratuity, or pension has been made to the relations of Messrs. Finney and Bloor, the inspectors of mines who lost their lives in doing their duty by trying to save life in the Holditch pit; and how far this recognition exceeds what would have been paid if they had died a natural death?

Captain Crookshank: The cases referred to were dealt with under the provisions of the Superannuation Acts and of the


Injury Warrant No. 1/1935 dated 27th June, 1935. I am sending the right hon. Gentleman a copy of the Warrant. The late Mr. Finney had no dependants. An has accordingly been made to his legal award of one year's salary (£639 14s. 11d) personal representatives, as would have been the case had he died a natural death. The award to the dependants of the late Mr. Bloor on the same basis would have been one year's salary (396 17s.), but in addition to this payment his widow has been granted a pension of £66 2s. 10d. per annum, she being the only dependant under the terms of the Warrant.

Colonel Wedgwood: I gather that the pensions and rewards are exactly those which would be given in the ordinary course, but may I ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the great heroism displayed by these two men, which is a very excellent example, he will receive at the Treasury a small deputation of those who are interested in seeing that a reward should be given in these exceptional cases?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): I did not know that the right hon. Gentleman was going to address that question to me, but having regard to the matter of it, I certainly will consider his suggestion sympathetically. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to communicate with me.

ROYALTIES AND WAYLEAVES.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Secretary for Mines the number of persons who are in receipt of royalties from coal in Northumberland; and the amount paid during the last 10 years?

Captain Crookshank: I regret that the information asked for in the first part: of the question is not available. As the reply to the second part of the question involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Shinwell: If the information is not available, how is it possible for the Mines Department to ascertain to whom compensation will be paid?

Captain Crookshank: All those questions will arise when we come to discuss the Bill.

Mr. Shinwell: But does not the hon. and gallant Member realise that it is necessary to obtain this information in advance, and does he not realise also that this is a very simple question which can be simply answered?

Captain Crookshank: Yes, and it has been answered in the simplest possible way by saying that the information is not at present available.

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask whether, when the Department receive a question such as this, they make a request to the owners to supply the information, and whether the owners refuse?

Captain Crookshank: I have already said that as regards this particular information it is not available.

Mr. Griffiths: But did you ask the owners for it?

Following is the information:

The estimated amounts paid by colliery owners in Northumberland in royalties and wayleaves (including the rental value of freehold minerals where worked by the proprietor) during the years 1927 to 1936 are as follow:


Year.


Amount.





£


1927
…
…
333,000


1928
…
…
310,000


1929
…
…
308, 000


1930
…
…
299,000


1931
…
…
298,000


1932
…
…
274,000


1933
…
…
298,000


1934
…
…
321,000


1935
…
…
319,000


1936
…
…
331,000


Total
…
…
3,091,000

Mr. R. J. Taylor: asked the Secretary for Mines (I) the amount paid for wayleaves in or about the coal mines in Northumberland during the last 10 years, 1927 to 1936, respectively;

(2) the amount paid for rental value of freehold minerals, where worked by the proprietor, for 1927 to 1936?

Captain Crookshank: I regret that no information is available beyond that referred to in the answer which I have just given to the hon. Member.

Mr. Taylor: Will the Minister say how the Department arrive at their annual totals of what is paid in royalty rents if they are unable to answer this question?

Captain Crookshank: If the hon. Member wants any details about how particular statistics are made up, perhaps he will put down a question.

Mr. Taylor: My question is very distinct and asks for a particular detail as to the amount of royalties and wayleaves paid in Northumberland in a stated period, and that is the detail for which I am now asking.

Captain Crookshank: It is a detail which is not at present available.

Hon. Members: Why not?

Mr. Shinwell: If this very simple information is not available, how is it possible for the Mines Department and the Government to determine the basis of compensation in connection with the forthcoming Bill?

Captain Crookshank: We may know the amount that is paid without knowing in any detail the actual number of persons receiving it.

Mr. Shinwell: What is the basis of compensation? Is it the number of persons, or is it simply a rough guess?

Captain Crookshank: Really, these questions do not arise out of the request for information, which I am not in a position to give, because I have not got it. Perhaps hon. Gentlemen would like to discuss the matter with me, because I am only too anxious to help in any way to get all the information which it is possible to get.

Mr. Taylor: I am not asking in this question for the names. I am asking for the amount. I put it to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the total is arrived at of the annual royalty paid in Northumberland; how can that total be made up without knowing in detail just how much was paid?

Captain Crookshank: I do not want to anticipate the discussion, but if the hon.

Member has asked his question in reference to the Bill which has just been published—

Mr. Taylor: I am not—

Captain Crookshank: I may say there will be provisions to deal with it. But at this particular moment this information is not available, or I would give it.

Mr. T. Smith: Is the Minister aware that the information was available a few years ago?

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Secretary for Mines the amount paid for wayleaves in or about the coal mines of the county of Durham during the last Io years, 1927 to 1936, respectively; and the amount paid in rental value of freehold minerals worked by the proprietor in the same county during the same period?

Captain Crookshank: I regret that no information is available beyond that given in my reply to the hon. Member on 9th November.

Mr. Stewart: Will the Department be able to deal with the question of the disbursement of £66,500,000 if they do not know the simple details asked for?

Captain Crookshank: Oh, yes, certainly. By the time the appropriate occasion arises for distributing the money, no doubt this information will be available. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly, under the provisions of the Bill.

Mr. Shinwell: rose—

Mr. Speaker: The Minister has already stated that he is unable to give the information asked for.

PRICES.

Mr. A. Jenkins: asked the Secretary for Mines whether, as a result of the negotiations that have taken place between the owners of the coal and steel industries for the purpose of fixing prices, he can supply particulars as to the prices agreed upon; and also if an agreement has been reached with regard to the price of coke being included in the arrangement?

Captain Crookshank: I am aware that in respect of both coal and coke discussions have been taking place with the steel industries, but I have no particulars


of any price policy that may have been agreed.

Mr. David Grenfell: asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the growing disparity between pit-head prices and those paid by industrial and domestic consumers in this country and the general apprehension that undue increases are being demanded from all classes of buyers, he will call for a return showing comparative prices paid in the September quarter, 1935, and the same quarter, 1937, in order to obtain reliable information regarding the effect of selling schemes upon consumers' prices and upon the earnings of men employed in the mining industry?

Captain Crookshank: I regret that I have no power to call for a return of retail prices, but the hon. Member is, of course, aware that information as to pithead proceeds of coal and their effect on the men's earnings is shown by the wages ascertainments.

Mr. Grenfell: Is the Minister not aware that the ascertainment figures published of pit-head prices do not at all indicate the real prices in the market, and in view of the great disparity, and the widespread apprehension that undue prices are being charged, will not the hon. and gallant Gentleman inquire and see where the disparity exists?

Mr. Shinwell: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say why it is impossible to obtain retail prices? Could he not ask the Retail Coalmerchants' Federation for these figures, as I have done myself on a previous occasion?

Captain Crookshank: The fact remains that if one has no power to call for returns it is not necessarily easy to get this information. I am not aware of the apprehension mentioned by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell).

Mr. A. V. Alexander: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will write to me, I will send him some figures.

Mr. Grenfell: Is the Minister not aware that industrialists are bitterly complaining about having to pay 6s. or 7s. more per ton than 12 months ago, and that there is no indication of this in the ascertainment?

Captain Crookshank: If industrialists or anybody else are aggrieved that they are paying too much, their remedy lies in an application to the committee of investigation which exists for the protection of the consumer.

Mr. Grenfell: But the consumer does that at very great inconvenience to himself. Will not the hon. and gallant Gentleman give this House the information which it is entitled to have in regard to this very important matter?

Mr. Grenfell: asked the Secretary for Mines the quantity of coal retained for internal consumption in Great Britain in 1931 and 1936, and the estimated consumption for all inland purposes for 1937; whether he can supply an estimate showing the gross annual amount paid by consumers in each year and the extent by which increased prices have been due to selling schemes?

Captain Crookshank: The quantity of coal available for consumption in Great Britain in the year 1931 was 155.7 million tons, and in 1936, 175.9 million tons. Consumption in the first 10 months of 1937 was at the rate of about 180 million tons per annum. I regret that information to enable the estimate asked for in the second part of the question to be made is not available, but in my view the rise in prices is attributable more to the increased demand than to the revised selling schemes.

Mr. Grenfell: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman in this case cause inquiries to be made so that the House may be put in possession of this very important information?

Captain Crookshank: I really do not know how this kind of inquiry can be made. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell me what he has in mind.

Mr. Grenfell: The hon. and gallant Gentleman does not seem to realise the importance attached to the matter in this House. I give notice that I will raise the matter at the first opportunity on the Adjournment.

CANADIAN MARKET.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he has had any recent consultations with the representatives of the Dominion of Canada in refer-


ence to the continued decline in our shipments of coal to the Dominion; whether in such consultations they have indicated to him the reasons for this fall in our exports of coal and the increase in the exports from Russia and other countries; and whether he is taking any steps to prevent a further decline in this trade?

Captain Crookshank: No consultations have taken place since those to which I referred in the reply I gave on 12th November, 1936, to my hon. Friend the Member for East Cardiff (Mr. Temple Morris). As regards the second and third parts of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given him on 9th November.

Mr. Griffiths: Has the Minister received any representations from the Dominion that they experienced difficulty in getting supplies of coal from South Wales this summer, and is not the reason that for the moment it is more profitable to send coal to Italy; and does the Minister think it is desirable that South Wales coal should be diverted to the Italian market, which is purely temporary and we should lose the more permanent market?

Captain Crookshank: I should like notice of that question, because I should not like to express an opinion offhand about the relative values of different parts of the export market.

Mr. Griffiths: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman not think it is desirable to retain this Canadian market, upon which the full-time working of the coalfield depends, and that it is suicidal policy to lose a grip on this market?

EXPORTS (GREAT BRITAIN AND GERMANY).

Mr. Jenkins: asked the Secretary for Mines the quantity of coal exported from Great Britain and from Germany for the years 1935, 1936, and to the most recent date of the current year?

Captain Crookshank: As the reply involves a number of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

In 1935 exports of coal as cargo from the United Kingdom amounted to 38.7 million statute tons, in 1936 to 34.5 million tons and in the first nine months of

1937 to 29.9 million tons. The comparable figures for Germany (including the Saar) are 26.7, 27.9 and 28.6 million statute tons, respectively.

Mr. Jenkins: asked the Secretary for Mines whether his attention has been called to the rapidly increasing quantity of coal exported from Germany; and whether any steps are being taken to arrest the declining share of Great Britain in the foreign coal markets as compared with Germany; and, if so, what measures are being taken?

Captain Crookshank: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 29th October to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Sir R. Clarry).

Mr. Jenkins: Is it not a fact that in his reply the hon. and gallant Gentleman then stated that no action at all was being taken and that no action was being contemplated?

Captain Crookshank: I do not think that that is quite an accurate summary of what I said. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would look at it again.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.

Mr. R. Acland: asked the President of the Board of Trade which recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee's Report on the steel industry, other than the recommendation in favour of a general oversight being kept upon the industry, are being considered or have been considered by the appropriate department and by the industry, respectively; in the case of those recommendations which have been considered, what conclusions have been reached; and, in the case of those recommendations that are being considered, when will conclusions be reached?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I fear that it is not practicable, within the limits of an answer to a Parliamentary question, to make a comprehensive review of the field covered by the report of the Import Duties Advisory Committee on the iron and steel industry; but if the hon. Member will


indicate the particular recommendations in which he is interested I will endeavour to give him the information that he desires.

Mr. Acland: Surely, in view of the fact that the Minister said, on 27th July:
A number of other recommendations are now being considered by the Department."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th July, 1937; col. 2830, Vol. 326.]
it ought to be possible for him to say which of the recommendations are being considered—if any are being considered at all?

Mr. Stanley: The point is that this committee, in their report, made something like 20 or 30 recommendations, and I feel that within the limits of question and answer it is impossible to deal with the situation. I should be glad to give the hon. Member information on any particular item.

Mr. Acland: If I put a question down, will the Minister state which paragraphs of this report are now being considered by his Department or by the industry?

Mr. Stanley: I can give this answer: All the recommendations of this report are being considered either by the industry or by the appropriate Government Department. If the hon. Gentleman would like to know how this inquiry into any of them stands at the moment, and if he would specify the particular case, I should be glad to give the information.

Mr. Acland: Am I right in thinking that, as this has been going on for some months now, no decision has been reached?

Mr. Acland: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will give details of the numbers of, and the salaries paid to, those members of the staff of the Import Duties Advisory Committee who are engaged solely upon the work of exercising supervision over the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the prices charged by the various branches of the British Iron and Steel Federation which fix prices for their products and for seeing that the prices fixed are in fact the prices charged; of ensuring that, in fact, there is no discrimination between members and nonmembers of the various subsidiary federations in regard to allocation of steel imported under the cartel agreements; of

supervising the reasonableness or otherwise of any scheme adopted for allocating output according to quota; of supervising the economic, financial, and social desirability of any proposals for the expansion or removal of iron and steel productive plant; and of supervising the fairness or otherwise of any loyalty rebate scheme?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): The work to which the hon. Member refers is still in a state of development, and the organisation of the committee's staff does not permit of the complete division between the staff employed on this and other work. I am informed, however, that a considerable part of the time of one assistant secretary and one principal officer is taken up with this and other work arising on iron and steel, while the following officers are wholly employed thereon, namely, a chief staff officer, an assistant principal, and two staff officers together with the appropriate clerical and other subordinate staff. In addition an advisory accountant is consulted as necessary on questions of. costs and prices. Particulars of the salaries of the officers so engaged are set out in the Estimates presented to Parliament. I may add that the committee are satisfied that their present staff is adequate for the purpose.

Sir Percy Harris: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is with his approval that the Iron and Steel Federation have stabilised steel prices at the present high level; whether he is aware that the price of steel is higher than it has been for many years; arid, in view of the drop in the price of scrap in the United States of America and the weakening of prices in the market, will he make clear that the Federation will not be allowed to exploit the monopoly against such users of steel as the tinplate, galvanised sheet, light castings manufacturers, and other users of steel, dependent largely on export markets for their trade?

Mr. Stanley: The Import Duties Advisory Committee exercise a general supervision over the price policy of the British Iron and Steel Federation and have concurred in the Federation's decision to maintain the present prices of certain iron and steel products during the year 1938. I am aware that the price of steel is higher than it has been for a


number of years, but I have no doubt that the committee have satisfied themselves as to the justification for the decision and that full consideration has been given to the interests of the export trade in iron and steel products.

Miss Wilkinson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been any consultation with the trade interests concerned or whether the Minister has simply taken the advice of the British Iron and Steel Federation?

Mr. Stanley: It is not a question of the Minister taking advice. I said that the Federation fixed prices after consultation with the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

Miss Wilkinson: Are the consumers' interests represented? That is what we want to get at.

Mr. Stanley: That is a matter for the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

Mr. Peat: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the increase in the price of steel since 1932 has been in the nature of 48 per cent., whereas the increase in the price of raw materials for use in the production of steel has been 98 per cent.?

Mr. Stanley: I should like to see details of these figures.

BOOTS AND SHOES (PRICES).

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the continued increases in the price of boots and shoes, in part due to the import duty on dressed leather; and what action he proposes to take, in view of the hardship caused to persons with low incomes by such increased prices?

Mr. Stanley: I know that boot and shoe prices have risen within the last 18 months. I understand that this increase follows increases in wage costs and the world prices of raw materials, and is not due to any material extent to the import duty on foreign dressed leather. Any question of revising that duty is for the Import Duties Advisory Committee in the first place.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Could the right hon. Gentleman confer on this matter with the Minister of Labour, in order that we may have the benefit of his knowledge of the matter?

Mr. Stanley: That seems to be more a question for the Minister of Labour.

FOOD PRICES.

Mr. Smedley Crooke: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the anxiety of the general body of housewives in the country caused by the rise in prices of groceries and other foodstuffs, which is causing hardship to those with small fixed incomes; whether he will set up an inquiry to make sure that the rise is not due to rings; and whether he will consider what further steps he can take to ease the burden of expenditure on the necessities of life.

Mr. Stanley: I am aware that the rise in food prices is causing concern. In general I would remind my hon. Friend that the rise in food prices reflects a recovery from the conditions of the period of depression. I doubt whether any useful purpose would be served by a special inquiry as suggested by my hon. Friend. Prices of foodstuffs are under continual observation both by the Food Council and the Government, and I am sure that the Council would not fail to report to me if it appeared that the prices of any foodstuffs were being raised unduly by the operation of rings.

Mr. Crooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that even the threat of an inquiry has caused a small drop in the prices of some foodstuffs; and would he, therefore, reconsider whether he will not have an inquiry made into the matter?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend's question refers specifically to the question of rings, and my answer is that that question is continually under the review of the Food Council, who, if they thought that there was a ring in a particular industry which was putting up prices, would not fail to report the matter to me at once.

Mr. Mander: If the Food Council did make such a recommendation, would the Government be prepared to act upon it?

Mr. Stanley: I should like to see first what the recommendation was.

Mr. Silverman: Is it still the policy of the Government to encourage a rise in prices?

Mr. Gallacher: On a point of Order. I put down a question, arising out of a resolution passed by the Labour party of Thornton, drawing attention to profiteer-


ing, or alleged profiteering, in connection with food prices, and asking that an inquiry should be instituted. You ruled, Mr. Speaker, that this question could not be put down, and I would like some explanation of why my question was ruled out while the present question has been allowed?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter which I cannot go into at the moment, but I can explain to the hon. Member afterwards exactly why his question was ruled out.

UNITED STATES.

Sir William Davison: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the tariff on toys from Great Britain entering the United States of America; and what is the tariff charged in respect of similar toys entering Great Britain from the United States of America?

Mr. Stanley: Toys on importation into the United States of America are subject to Customs duties at rates varying from 1 cent. each plus 50 per cent. ad valorem, to 90 per cent. ad valorem. Toys imported into the United Kingdom from foreign countries are subject to import duty at the rate of 15 per cent. or, if they contain more than 10 per cent. of rubber or celluloid, at the rate of 25 per cent. ad valorem.

Sir W. Davison: Will my right hon. Friend see that there is some reciprocity in regard to the duties on toys coming into this country and toys going from this country to the United States?

Mr. E. Smith: Are not questions of this character to be deprecated while delicate negotiations are taking place between Great Britain and the United States of America, in view of the need for the maximum amount of economic co-operation?

Mr. Stanley: I am sure that my hon. Friend who put this question down had no such motive in his mind at all, and I am sure that all hon. Members will have the same feeling at the back of their minds. I cannot feel that a question which just draws attention to a disparity in duties as between countries would have that effect.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Is it not a fact that the obstacle to understanding comes from the benches opposite?

Mr.Stanley: No, Sir.

Mr. Crossley: asked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of British exports to the United States of America are admitted free of duty; and what is the proportion of United States exports to Great Britain so admitted?

Mr. Stanley: I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies given on 10th November to the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. H. G. Williams). On the basis of the figures then given, the proportions were 45 and 32 per cent. respectively in 1935.

Mr. Petherick: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Empire Cotton Growing Federation has been, or will he, consulted in connection with the projected commercial agreement with the United States of America?

Mr. Stanley: As I explained during the Debate on the Address, the discussions with the United States of America, with the object of finding a basis of negotiation for a trade agreement, are still in an informal and exploratory stage. If negotiations are opened, I shall be glad to take into consideration any representations on the subject that the Empire Cotton Growing Corporation may wish to place before me.

Mr. Petherick: asked the President of the Board of Trade the figures for the balance of trade between the United Kingdom and the United States of America for 1936, 1935, and 1929, taking invisible exports into consideration?

Mr. Stanley: In the absence of reliable data in respect of many of the invisible items, I am unable to furnish the information asked for.

Captain Arthur Evans: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the present position of the negotiations for the trade agreement with the United States of America; and whether the Secretaries of State for the Dominions and the Colonies will be consulted before any commitments are made?

Mr. Stanley: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the statement which I made in the Debate on the Address, to which at present I have nothing to add. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative.

RUSSIA.

Sir W. Davison: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total amount of imports from the Russian Soviet Union to Great Britain during the years 1934, 1935, and 1936; what are the total Soviet imports, apart from re-exports, from Great Britain during the same years; and also what were the total British imports from Russia during the first six months of 1937 and the total Russian imports from Great Britain, apart from re-exports, during the same period?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend will find the desired particulars for the years 1934, 1935 and 1936 on page 184 of the issue of the "Accounts relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom "for January, 1937, and those for the first six months of 1937 on page 283 of the issue of these Accounts for July last.

Sir W. Davison: Do not those figures show that, apart from re-exports, the imports from Russia to this country are overwhelmingly greater than the exports from this country to Russia; and does not that show that the time has now arrived for a proper agreement to be entered into with Russia with regard to trade, which would take account of the private claims of British creditors?

Mr. Alexander: Is it not a fact that among the re-exports are large purchases, made by Russia in this country, of Colonial products, thus setting up a valuable market for us in the Colonies?

Mr. Petherick: Is my right hon. Friend, from an examination of the figures, really satisfied that the Anglo-Russian trade agreement is being strictly carried out by Russia?

Mr. Stanley: It is being strictly carried out in the letter, but, as I have pointed out, it would certainly be more satisfactory to this country if a larger proportion of genuine exports from this country were taken, and rather less re-exports.

Mr. Neil Maclean: Is it not the fact that orders for very large quantities of machinery, to the value of millions of pounds, have been placed in this country by Russia; and is not that satisfactory to the Government?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir. I am sure the House will remember that the figures which have been published up to now do

not yet show the results of the credit agreement with Russia, which only recently came to an end.

FILM INDUSTRY.

Mr. Mander: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to carry out Recommendation 17 of the Report of the Moyne Committee (Cmd 5320) on the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927, that the Government should approach those Dominions in which film quota legislation is in operation to protect the local industry, with a view to urging that treatment given by them to films made in Great Britain should, as far as possible, be reciprocal to that received by their films in this country?

Mr. Stanley: So far as I am aware, Australia is the only Dominion in which quota legislation is in operation to protect the local film industry. The legislation is State, not Commonwealth, legislation. I will bear the suggestion of the hon. Member in mind when a suitable opportunity occurs to raise the question of reciprocal treatment for films in Great Britain.

Mr. Mander: As this is a definite recommendation of the Moyne Committee, cannot the right hon. Gentleman say whether he intends to seek an opportunity of carrying it out at once?

Mr. Stanley: Of course it may be a recommendation of the Moyne Committee, but any effect has to be given to it by legislation in Australia, and a suitable moment for raising it is at the moment when amending legislation of one kind or another is going to be introduced.

Mr. Mander: As we have amending legislation before the House at the present time, surely this is an opportune moment?

Mr. Day: Was it not stated, in the time of the last Government, that they would endeavour to obtain the same quota conditions in the Colonies and Dominions?

Mr. Stanley: I should not like to answer without notice a question on something that was said by the Government in 1927.

Mr. Day: asked the President of the Board of Trade the country or countries of origin of all the cinematograph film imported into Great Britain and Northern Ireland and registered for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date?

Mr. Stanley: As the answer involves a tabular statement, I will with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Day: Do the figures show that America has exported into this country

Table showing the quantity and declared value of cinematograph films imported into the United Kingdom during the year 1936, distinguishing the principal countries of consignments. Particulars of the countries of origin of these films are not available.


—
Quantity.
Declared value.






Thousand linear feet of the standard width of I⅜in.
£


Cinematograph films—




Blank film—




Total imports
…
…
…
70,843
273,328


Of which consigned from:




Canada
…
…
…
223
524


Germany
…
…
…
12,015
36,748


Belgium
…
…
…
10,280
39,267


France
…
…
…
5,992
20,542


United States
…
…
…
42,082
174,646


Positives—




Total imports
…
…
…
20,371
130,321


Of which consigned from:




Germany
…
…
…
1,254
12,560


Netherlands
…
…
…
163
1,715


Belgium
…
…
…
133
829


France
…
…
…
1,607
11,983


Austria
…
…
…
228
1,845


United States
…
…
…
16,125
92,141


Negatives—




Total imports
…
…
…
2,968
60,003


Of which consigned from:




Irish Free State
…
…
…
116
2,701


Canada
…
…
…
171
6,635


Germany
…
…
…
110
2,099


France
…
…
…
323
8,970


United States
…
…
…
1,550
19,849

UNITED KINGDOM, GERMANY AND ITALY.

Mr. Day: asked the President of the Board of Trade the figures showing the balance of trade between the United Kingdom, Germany, and Italy for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date?

Mr. Stanley: As the answer involves a table of figures, I will, with the hon.

Table showing the total declared value of merchandise imported into and exported from the United Kingdom in Trade with Germany and Italy, respectively, during the twelve months ended September, 1937, together with the balance of imports.


Country from or to which consigned
Imports into the United Kingdom
Total exports from the United Kingdom
Excess of Imports.







£000.
£000.
£000.


Germany
…
…
…
…
35,316
28,464
6,852


Italy
…
…
…
…
7,352
4,306
3,046

more than 1,060 films and 3,500,000 feet of negative films?

Mr. Stanley: I am afraid the figures do not show the number of films. They show only the total linear feet.

Following is the answer:

Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Day: Do the figures include the invisible items, as well as the visible ones?

Mr. Stanley: Oh, no.

Following is the answer:

CARPETS AND VELVET GOODS (IMPORTS).

Captain Ramsay: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that heavy price cutting by foreign importers has resulted in greatly increased imports of certain types of low-grade carpets and velvet goods; and whether he will consult with representatives of the industry in this country with a view to the imposition of a quota or the prohibition of imports of these goods at abnormally low prices?

Mr. Stanley: I am aware that there has been some increase in imports of carpets and of cotton pile fabrics, but I have no power to impose a quota restriction or prohibition on imports. Any question of an increase in the import duty on such

Table showing the quantity and declared value of leatherboard and imitation leatherboard imported into the United Kingdom during the undermentioned periods, distinguishing the principal countries of consignment. As regards production, the only year for which figures are at present available is 1935. According to the provisional figures the total quantity made for sale in that year was 244,000 cwts., valued at £201,000.


Leatherboard and imitation leatherboard.
Quantity.
Declared value.


1934
1935.
1936.
Jan.to Oct., 1937.
1934
1935
1936
Jan.to Oct., 1927



Cwts.
Cwts.
Cwts.
Cwts.
£
£
£
£


Total imports into the United Kingdom.
414,354
394,280
452,773
392,630
220,926
199,854
227,572
209,424


Of which consigned from:










Canada
28,415
29,381
22,075
(a)
14,903
15,629
13,440
(a)


Finland
24,869
11,573
55,078
12,658
6,033
26,083


Sweden
155,595
184,042
209,802
84,041
93,904
105,126


Norway
30,676
29,858
23,884
16,932
15,426
12,574


Germany
138,218
95,436
93,535
75,085
48,124
47,814


Netherlands
11,464
10,826
13,681
4,437
3,905
4,885


(a) Not readily available.


NOTE.—Particulars of imports and production of leatherboard are not compiled separately from those of imitation leatherboard.

MILK PRODUCTS (IMPORT DUTIES).

Mr. Turton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the grounds on which he refused to adopt the recommendations of the Import Duties Advisory Committee (Cmd. 5591), recommending the imposition of additional duties on certain milk products?

Sir J. Simon: I would refer my hon. Friend to the full answer which was given by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to a question asked by the hon. Member for Birkenhead, East (Mr. White) on 11th November.

goods is a matter for consideration, in the first instance, by the Import Duties Advisory Committee.

LEATHER BOARDS (IMPORT).

Mr. F. Anderson: asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity and value of leather boards imported to this country for 1937, 1936, 1935, and 1934, respectively, showing the country of origin separately; and the quantity and value produced for the same years in this country?

Mr. Stanley: As the answer involves a table of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

Mr. Turton: Is this one of the few occasions when the Import Duties Advisory Committee have made a recommendation for the benefit of agriculture?

IMPORT DUTIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Sir John Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will specify the cases during the past 12 months in which the Import Duties Advisory Committee, while deciding not to make a recommendation. have supplied the Government with a memorandum; and whether, in any and which of such cases, a reference to the terms of the memo-


randum has been published by the Government?

Sir J. Simon: The cases in which the Import Duties Advisory Committee, while deciding that they would not be prepared to make a recommendation, have supplied the Government with a memorandum of their conclusions relate to applications in respect of duties covered by trade agreements. My hon. Friend will, I am sure, appreciate that in these cases it is as a rule undesirable to disclose the position in advance of trade negotiations. The only cases of this kind in which the Government have published the decision of the committee were those relating to the applications for Increased duties on butter and cheese, and eggs in shell and table poultry.

Sir J. Mellor: Will my right hon. Friend say what was the objection to disclosing the whole of the contents of the memoranda on these cases instead of only a partial quotation?

Sir J. Simon: The hon. Gentleman, I think, has asked that question before. The publication is made for the general information. It is plainly the case that, if there are trade negotiations now or in the future, it is not in all cases desirable to make a more complete statement.

JAPAN.

Captain Plugge: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, taking the latest available figure, British trade with Japan shows any appreciable decline as a result of the disinclination of the public to buy Japanese imports?

Mr. Stanley: The answer is in the negative.

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.

Mr. Alexander: asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of excess imports over total exports for the TO months ended 31st October, 1935, 31st October, 1936, and 31st October, 1937, respectively?

Mr. Stanley: The excess of imports over total exports of merchandise in the trade of the United Kingdom during the first 10 months of 1935, 1936 and 1937 was £215.5 million, £276.1 million and £340.1 million respectively.

Mr. Alexander: Is the President of the Board of Trade going to take any special steps in regard to these increasing imports?

Mr. Stanley: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is advocating an increased measure of protection as a preventative of increased imports.

AIRCRAFT (EXPORTS, LATVIA).

Mr. Garro Jones: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any and, if so, what number of Gloucester Gladiator aircraft, with 840 horse-power Bristol Mercury engines, have been manufactured in this country for export to Latvia; and what is the international mark used on these machines?

Mr. Stanley: It is the general practice not to give information regarding the trade of individual manufacturers.

Mr. Garro Jones: As the trade of individual manufacturers involves the export of armaments which may be used against this country's interests, is not that a matter which ought to be disclosed to the House of Commons?

Mr. Stanley: That principle has been generally adopted. Answers have frequently been given either as to the amount of exports to a particular country or the value of goods exported under licence to a particular country. Answers are never given with regard to the transactions of individual firms.

Mr. Garro Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to give answers to questions which seek to ascertain the horse-power of aircraft engines which are exported?

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman, perhaps, had better put that question down, and let me see it.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIXED TRUSTS.

Mr. Liddall: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the contract, under which sub-unit holders in a fixed trust are now invited to surrender their sub-units against shares in a new managed trust, provides not only that the fixed trust managers shall assign to the new company the released


service fund belonging to the unit-trust holders but also that the new company shall hand back to the fixed trust managers the whole of the fund; and whether he will require that the terms of fixed trust conversion optional invitations shall be referred to his Department pending unit-trust legislation so that he may protect the public against being deprived of the whole of their initial payments for loading costs, as will be the case in the above-mentioned invitation to exchange?

Mr. Stanley: I understand that, in the case to which my hon. Friend no doubt refers, the agreement provides for the service fund to be irrevocably assigned to the investment trust company in annual instalments proportionate to the extent of the conversion, and for the investment trust company to pay it, not to the fixed trust managers, but to the company which is to provide secretarial services, and only as long as they are so rendered. The fund is left in the hands of the trustees until the releases are made. The answer to the latter part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. Alexander: Does the President of the Board of Trade propose to introduce legislation with regard to this matter?

Mr. Stanley: I answered a question on that point the other day.

Oral Answers to Questions — FIDUCIARY ISSUE.

Mr. Attlee: (by Private Notice) asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes any variation in the fiduciary note issue to meet Christmas demands?

Sir J. Simon: Yes, Sir. I have given directions at the request of the Bank of England and under the powers conferred on the Treasury by the Currency and Bank Notes Act, 1928, that as from the middle of November, 1937, the fiduciary issue which was reduced from £260,000,000 to £200,000,000 last year should be temporarily raised to £220,000,000. This arrangement is to meet seasonal demands and it is, therefore, contemplated that it will obtain for about two months, that to the middle of January, 1938.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the unemployed get any of it?

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

MARITIME CONVENTIONS.

Mr. Mander: asked the President of the Board of Trade the position with regard to the ratification by Great Britain of the International Labour Office maritime conventions?

Mr. Stanley: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to the hon. Member for Stepney on 4th November. The White Paper to which my right hon. Friend referred will include the decisions on the Draft Conventions and recommendations adopted at the Maritime Session of the International Labour Conference in October last.

Mr. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how soon it is likely to be published?

Mr. Stanley: I think my right hon. Friend said that it would be published before the Spring.

Mr. J. Griffiths: He did not say which.

FOREIGN SHIPS (BRITISH REGISTRATION).

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the President of the Board of Trade, what number of foreign ships were transferred to the British flag, respectively, in the first nine months of 1936 and of the present year?

Mr. Stanley: During the period 1st January to 30th September, 1936, 137 ships were transferred from foreign countries and permanently registered as British ships, the corresponding figure for 1937 being 200. On 30th September, 1936, there were 20 provisional certificates of British registry in force, while 51 such certificates were in force on the corresponding date in 1937.

Sir A. Knox: Is not the large increase in the number of ships registered this year owing to the desire of the owners to obtain the protection of the British Navy while engaged in running cargoes into that part of Spain still under the control of the republican Government, and is not that whole process in spirit a breach of neutrality?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. and gallant Friend had better await the answer to a question on this specific point which I am going to give later.

Captain A. Evans: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many ships were refused provisional registration under the British flag during the nine months ended 30th September, 1937; and whether any such refusals were because such registration was sought only as a temporary expedient?

Mr. Stanley: Since the issue of instructions at the end of August last regarding the special scrutiny of applications for provisional certificates of registry, four applications have been refused, in each case on the ground that the applicants were not qualified to own British ships. Prior to that date, certificates of provisional registry were usually issued by Consuls without reference to the Board of Trade, and it is not possible to say how many applications were not proceeded with because of the inability of the applicants to satisfy the Consul as to their title to own British ships.

Captain Evans: Do I understand that the four refusals referred to by my right hon. Friend relate only to one month?

Mr. Stanley: To a period since about the end of August.

Mr. Thurtle: Can the Minister say that the Government are doing everything they can to hamper the efforts of the Spanish Government to get supplies?

Mr. Stanley: Our desire is not to give the protection and advantages of the British flag to people who are not really entitled to them.

Miss Wilkinson: Can the Minister say whether, in view of the recent action of the Admiralty in not protecting British shipping, there is any particular advantage?

Mr. Stanley: From the number of applications received from foreigners there would appear to be some.

Viscountess Astor: What about all the children the British sailors saved?

Captain Evans: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that, in the case of the 209 foreign ships transferred to the British flag and permanently registered as British ships during the nine months ended 30th September, 1937, no such registration was sought only as a temporary expedient; and can he state from what different foreign countries such foreign ships were

transferred and the number from each country?

Mr. Stanley: With my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, I will circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT giving the number of ships transferred to the British register from various foreign countries during the period 1st January to 30th September last. Of the 200 ships transferred, 113 ships were small vessels under 200 tons gross, such as barges, tugs, yachts, 51 being under 50 tons gross, while of the remainder 28 were ships built abroad for British owners. The statutory provisions do not require reasons for transfer to be given. All except five of the ships still remain on the British register.

Following is the Statement:

TABLE showing the number of ships transferred from foreign countries and permanently registered as British ships during the period 1st January to 30th September, 1937.


Argentina
1


Austria
4


Belgium
5


Borneo
1


China
13


Denmark
7


Estonia
1


France
21


Germany
10


Greece
8


Holland
72


Hungary
3


Italy
1


Japan
1


Latvia
1


Luxemburg
1


Norway
6


Panama
2


Sarawak
1


Spain
6


Sweden
4


United States of America
29


Yugo Slavia
2


Total
200

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE (FOOD SUPPLIES).

Major Mills: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to set up any local organisation in connection with the plans which are being prepared in his Department for safeguarding the food supplies of this country during an emergency?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir. It has been decided, as part of the plans which are in course of preparation for controlling the supply and distribution of food and feeding-stuffs in the event of an emergency, to create throughout Great Britain a "shadow" organisation which could, without delay, act as a Food Control Committee in the area of each local authority, as during the period of food control in the Great War. I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate further particulars in the OFFICIAL REPORT, together with the names of the gentlemen who will act as divisional food officers.

Mr. Bellenger: Of what will the shadow commission consist? Will it be distributive or purchasing?

Mr. Stanley: The shadow organisation will be in readiness for an emergency, to perform all the duties performed under the Food Controller in the last War.

Mr. Alexander: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when this decision was taken and with whom consultations have taken place?

Mr. Stanley: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put that question down.

Following are the particulars:

Great Britain, excluding London and the Home Counties, will be divided into 15 divisions (eight in England, two in Wales and five in Scotland) for each of which a divisional food officer has been appointed. In addition a chief divisional food officer has been appointed for Scotland. Each divisional food officer will, at an early date, approach each of the local authorities concerned in his division, and discuss arrangements for setting up the proposed "shadow" organisation in the area.

In London and the Home Counties, divisional food officers will not be appointed for the present; the Food (Defence Plans) Department will itself approach local authorities in these areas and generally undertake, for the time being, the work which in other parts of Great Britain will be performed by divisional food officers.

It is not anticipated that any expenditure will be incurred by local authorities in this connection in peace time. In the event of an emergency, the expenses of

local food control committees would be defrayed from national funds.

The following appointments of divisional food officers have been made, in consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland so far as appointments in Scotland are concerned:

Name, Division (showing counties included) and Headquarters.

I.—ENGLAND AND WALES.

Northern.

Sir Arthur Lambert, M.C., D.L., J.P. (Durham, Northumberland, with Tees-side) Newcastle-on-Tyne.

North Eastern.

W. Carby Hall, Esq., C.B.E., F.R.I.B.A.

(Yorkshire excluding Tees-side)—Leeds.

North Western.

E. Gardner, Esq., J.P. (Cheshire, Cumberland, Lancashire, Westmorland)—Liverpool.

North Midland.

W. O. MacArthur, Esq. (Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Soke-of-Peterborough, Nottinghamshire, Rutland)—Nottingham.

Midland.

Sir James Curtis, K.B.E., D.L., J.P. (Herefordshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, Worcestershire)—Birmingham.

Eastern.

Lieut.-Colonel O. M. Lanyon, D.S.O., J.P. (Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Huntingdonshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, Isle of Ely)—Cambridge.

Southern.

Lieut.-Colonel E. Tennant (Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Dorset, Hampshire, Oxfordshire, Sussex)—Reading.

South Western.

F. T. Lee-Norman, Esq., M.C., A.M.I.C.E. (Cornwall, Devonshire, Gloucestershire, Somerset, Wiltshire)—Bristol.

North Wales.

Major W. Lloyd Griffith, M.B.E., J.P. (Anglesey, Caernarvonshire, Denbighshire, Flintshire, Merionethshire, Montgomeryshire)—Caernarvon.

South Wales.

Sir Thomas Jones, K.B.E. (Brecknockshire, Cardiganshire, Carmarthenshire, Glamorgan-shire, Monmouthshire, Pembrokeshire, Radnorshire)—Cardiff.

II.—SCOTLAND.

J. W. Peck, Esq., C.B. (Chief Divisional officer for Scotland)—Edinburgh.

South East of Scotland.

J. Erskine Dods, Esq., O.B.E., M.A., LL.B., S.S.C. (Midlothian (including City of Edinburgh), Berwick, East Lothian, Peebles, Roxburgh, Selkirk, Westlothian)—Edinburgh.

West of Scotland.

Colonel W. D. Scott, D.S.O., M.C., D.L., J.P. (Lanark (including City of Glasgow), Argyll, Ayr, Bute, Clackmannan, Dumbarton, Dumfries, Kirkcudbright, Renfrew, Stirling, Wigtown)—Glasgow.

East of Scotland.

C. H. Marshall, Esq., S.S.C., D.L., J.P. (Angus (including City of Dundee), Fife, Kinross, Perth)—Dundee.

North East of Scotland.

George Bennett Mitchell, Esq., D.L., J.P., F.R.I.B.A., F.S.I. (Aberdeen (including the City of Aberdeen), Banff, Kincardine, Moray, Orkney, Shetland)—Aberdeen.

North of Scotland.

Colonel the hon. Ian Malcolm Campbell D.S.O., M.A. (Inverness, Caithness, Nairn, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland)—Inverness.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH COMMONWEALTH (FOREIGN NATIONS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of letting it be known that the British Government would be prepared to consider sympathetically any application by a foreign State to become associated with the British Commonwealth of Nations on appropriate mutually advantageous terms?

Sir J. Simon: My right hon. Friend does not think that it would be desirable to make any statement as to the attitude of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom in such a contingency unless and until the possibility suggested by the hon. Member arises in a practical form.

Mr. Mander: Would this not be a very good way of extending the area of the Pax Britannica in the world?

Mr. Garro Jones: Would the suggestion not be more likely to produce results if it were made clear that association with the British Commonwealth of Nations would not involve association with the National Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT LOANS.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of Government loans which have been taken up at the issue price by Government Departments during each of the past three years, and the amount realised by subsequent resale to the public?

Sir J. Simon: As I explained to the hon. Member on 15th June, 1937, I cannot undertake to furnish details of this character.

Mr. Bellenger: Might I ask why the right hon. Gentleman cannot, and whether he can direct my attention to any part of the public accounts where I can find this information?

Sir J. Simon: If the hon. Member is interested in the holdings of Government Departments—I think that is the point at issue—he will find that they are published annually. I will send him the reference if he likes, but I cannot agree to give him day-by-day information. It is a well-understood principle that that should not be done.

Mr. Bellenger: I am not asking for that information. I am merely asking for information that will show what has been taken up by the Government in the way of public loans at the issue price and subsequently resold to the public. I want to find the difference.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOLD STANDARD.

Mr. Roland Robinson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can make any statement as to the prospects of an early return to the Gold Standard; and whether it is the policy of the Government to bring about such a return at an early date?

Sir J. Simon: I would refer my hon. Friend to the considered statement which I made on 8th June to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen East (Mr. Boothby) and the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price), to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. Robinson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether any negotiations are in progress between Great Britain, France and the United States of America, with a view to an early return to the Gold Standard on the basis of a reduced gold content of the standard coin?

Sir J. Simon: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. Robinson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any consultations are now taking place with either the United States or France with regard to monetary policy?

Sir J. Simon: I have answered the question, which was quite specific, as to whether there were negotiations with a view to an early return to the Gold Standard. I said, "No."

Oral Answers to Questions — EXCHANGE EQUALISATION ACCOUNT.

Mr. R. Robinson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Exchange Equalisation Account is to be regarded as a permanent instrument of financial policy; and if not, whether he can give any indication of the period during which its operations are expected to continue?

Sir J. Simon: As my hon. Friend will see from Section 24 (2) of the Finance Act, 1932, which set up the Exchange Equalisation Account, due provision was made for winding up the Account when it is no longer required. It is not possible to make any forecast as to when this condition will be fulfilled.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRENCH STATE RAILWAY (LOANS, BRITISH BANKS).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the £40,000,000 lent to the French State railways by British banks last January had his approval; and what were the terms of repayments?

Sir J. Simon: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The credit was to run for a maximum period of about 10 months, repayment to take place during the period 30th November to 24th December.

Mr. De la Bère: Do not the Government think that this £40,000,000 is wanted at home by agriculture for loans, and also for those who are unemployed?

Sir J. Simon: I am not quite sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that the

£40,000,000 is not Government money or public money. It is a loan advanced by certain banks.

Mr. De la Bère: It belongs to the British public.

Captain A. Evans: Has my right hon. Friend reason to believe that this loan is not going to be repaid according to the terms?

Sir J. Simon: Of course, it will be repaid.

Mr. Davidson: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the hon. Member who asked the question that profits have no nationality?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it is intended that the House shall sit late to-night, and for what purpose the Eleven o' Clock Rule is being suspended?

Sir J. Simon: It is hoped to conclude the discussion on the Air-Raid Precautions Bill and the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution by half-past seven. Afterwards it is proposed to take the Committee stages of the National Health Insurance (Juvenile Contributors and Young Persons) Bill, the Scottish Housing Money Resolution, and, if there is time, the Blind Persons Bill. It is proposed to take the business up to and including the Scottish Housing Money Resolution, but it is not our intention to keep the House sitting late, and we do not propose to enter upon the consideration of the Blind Persons Bill at a late hour.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings con Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Sir J. Simon.]

The House divided: Ayes, 285; Noes, 120.

Division No. 13.]
AYES.
[3.48 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Bird, Sir R. B.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Blair, Sir R.


Albery, Sir Irving
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Blaker, Sir R.


Allen, Col. J. Sandman (B'knhead)
Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Baxter, A. Beverley
Bower, Comdr. R. T.


Apsley, Lord
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Braithwaite, Major A. N.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Brass, Sir W.


Assheton, R.
Beit, Sir A. L.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Bennett, Sir E. N.
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Bernays, R. H.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)


Atholl, Duchres of
Birchall, Sir J D.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)




Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Haslam, Henry (Hornoastle)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Ramsbotham, H.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Butcher, H. W.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hopworth, J.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cortland, J. R. H.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Rayner, Major R. H.


Carver, Major W. H.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Cary, R. A.
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Higgs, W. F.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Channon, H.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Heldsworth, H.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Holmes, J. S.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Christie, J. A.
Hore Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Clarke, Lt.-Col R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hulbert, N. J.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hunter, T.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Colman, N. C. D.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Salmon, Sir I.




 Salt, E. W.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Keeling, E. H.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Sandys, E. D.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Kerr H. W. (Oldham)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Savory, Sir Servington


Cox, H. B. T.
Kimball, L.
Scott, Lord William


Cranborne, Viscount
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Selley, H. R.


Crooke, J. S.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Crossley, A. C.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lees-Jones, J.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Davidson, Viscountess
Leighton, Major B. E. P
Simmonds, O. E.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Levy, T.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Lewis, O.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


De Chair, S. S.
Liddall, W. S.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


De la Bère, R.
Lipson, D. L.
Smithers, Sir W. Somerset, T.


Denville, Alfred
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Dodd, J. S.
Lloyd, G. W.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Doland, G. F.
Locker-Lampoon, Comdr. O. S.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Donner, P. W.
Loftus, P. C.
Spens, W. P.


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Dower, Major A. V. G.
Lyons, A. M.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Drewe, C.
Mabane, W. (Huchiertifield)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
MeEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
MuKie, J. H.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Maconamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Dunglass, Lord
Maitland, A.



Eastwood, J. F.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Sueter, Roar-Admiral Sir M. F.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Tate, Mavis C.


Ellis, Sir G.
Marsden, Commander A.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Eiliston, Capt. G. S.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Emmett, C. E. G. C.
Muller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Thomas, J. P. L.


Erttrys-Evans, P. V.
Mellor. Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Touche, G. C.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Turton, R. H.


Everard, W. L.
Mitchell, H. (Bremford and Chiswick)
Wakefield, W. W.


Findlay, Sir E.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)



Fleming, E. L.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Ganzoni, Sir J.
Munro, P.
Warrender, Sir V.


Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Gilmour, Lt.-Cot. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Gledhill, G.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Gluckstein, L. H.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Goldie, N. B.
Orntsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Wells, S. R.


Gower, Sir FL V.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Owen, Major G.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Grant-Ferris, R.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Granville, E. L.
Peake, O.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Grattan-Doyle. Sir N.
Peat, C. U.



Grattan, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Petherick, M.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Grimston, R. V.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Pilkington, R.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Plargge, Capt. L. F.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Porritt, R.- W.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Hannah, I. C.
Pownall, Sir Assheton



Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Procter, Major H. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Harbord, A.
Purbriok, R.
Captain Hope and Mr. Cross.


Harvey, Sir G.









NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Ridley, G.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Riley, B.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'labr.)

Ritson, J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. W. (W. Brom.)


Attlee, Rt. non. C. R.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Banfield, J. W.
Hollins, A. Hopkin, D.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Barnes, A. J.
Jagger, J.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Barr, J.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sexton. T. M.


Batey, J.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Heath)
Shinwell, E.


Ballenger, F. J.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Short, A.


Bonn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Silverman, S. S.


Bevan, A.
Kelly, W. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Bromfield, W.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Lathan, G.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (Kly)


Chew, D.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Clues, W. S.
Leach, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leonard, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leslie, J. R.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Day, H.
Logan, D. G.
Thorne, W. Thurtle, E.


Dobbie, W.
Lunn, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Dunn, E. (Bother Valley)
Macdonald, G. (Ina)
Viant, S. P.


Ede, J. C.
McEntee, V. La T.
Walkden, A. G.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
MacLaren, A.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maclean, N.
Watson, W. McL.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Welsh, J. C.


 Gallacher, W.
Mander, G. le M.
Westwood, J.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Marklew, E.
White, H. Graham


George, Major
Marshall, F.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Messur, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Milner, Major J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Montague, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Grenfell, D. R.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Paling, W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Parker, J.



Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Groves.


Hardie, Agnes
Quibell, D. J. K.



Harris, Sir P. A.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hayday, A.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend section one hundred and sixty-three of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, as respects contributions out of wages to certain funds established for the provision of superannuation and other like benefits." [Merchant Shipping (Superannuation Contributions) Bill [Lords.]

Orders of the Day — AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [15th November], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Which Amendment was, to leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
this House, whilst conscious of the regrettable necessity for taking measures to protect life and property in the event of air raids, cannot assent to the Second Reading of a Bill which does not provide for the cost involved being made a national charge."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

3.59 P.m.

Mr. Churchill: When you interrupted me last night, Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the Rules of the House, I had virtually completed my preliminary compliments to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland upon the speech which he had delivered: I now address myself, in the very few and brief observations on which I venture, to some of the aspects of the Bill that is before us—a Bill which, I need scarcely say, commands my wholehearted support. I think the Government were right not to lead the country into a vast expenditure upon bomb-proof shelters against large armour-piercing or semi-armour-piercing projectiles. Perhaps it was not an easy decision to take, but upon the whole I think they were quite right not to take any responsibility for affording complete immunity by passive defence to the population against air attack. It is beyond the power of any organisation to do that.
But these large armour-piercing or semi-armour-piercing projectiles are not the ones which would be used against the civil population. They are used to attack warships, perhaps to attack power stations or docks, or possibly to disorganise the water supply and electric mains of great cities; but as a weapon to attack the general civil population they would be obviously unsuitable. Only five can be carried to a ton. That people should come all the way across the sea and land, with all the dangers of air raids, to carry the best part of a ton

of steel in projectiles when they can effect incomparably greater damage by bringing 25 times as many 20-lb. high explosive bombs—to suggest that, is not entirely to apprehend the actual problem.
The statement which was made that it took 20 feet to 24 feet of concrete to give protection against high explosive bombs must, of course, be qualified by the fact that these particular armour-piercing bombs would not be used against the civil population, and that for all practical purposes very much lighter structures give a very considerable measure of immunity; and although I agree with the Government that it would be wrong to consume an undue proportion of our limited resources upon what is, after all, the most extreme form of passive defence—the funk hole—although it would be wrong to consume an undue proportion of our resources in that, I do not think the question is quite disposed of by the treatment it has received from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Some more study should be given to the provision of immunity from high explosive bombs which are in tin containers and have no great penetrative power, but have enormously destructive power when flung among the ordinary habitations in which the unfortunate human race resides.
I was also very glad to hear from the Home Secretary that he is, as the expression goes, fully alive to the danger of incendiary bombs. He said yesterday:
I am inclined to think that in the past we have not given sufficient attention to the dangers of the incendiary bomb, that is to say, the small bomb that can start a very large number of fires."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 55th November, 1937; col. 47, Vol. 329.]
I hope my right hon. Friend will forgive me if I turn to the valuable records of the House and say it is quite clear that my pleasure in hearing him say that has a foundation. Exactly three yeare ago, in November, 1934, in the Debate on the Address I said:
The most dangerous form of air attack is the attack by incendiary bombs. Such an attack was planned by the Germans for the Summer of 5958, I think for the time of the harvest moon. The argument in favour of such an attack was that if in any great city there are, we will say, 50 fire brigades, and you start simultaneously 100 fires or 80 fires, and the wind is high, an almost incalculable conflagration may result. … Since those days the incendiary thermite bomb has become far more powerful than any that was used in the late War.


I presume that it was of the thermite bomb that the Home Secretary was speaking yesterday.
It will in fact, I am assured by persons who are acquainted with the science, go through a series of floors in any building, igniting each one simultaneously."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1934; cols. 858 and 859, Vol. 295.]
I am naturally glad to find that my right hon. Friend is in agreement with me and others of that time in feeling that insufficient attention has been given in the past to the dangers of this attack, and I earnestly trust that it will be the subject of continuous study. It is quite true that apparently it has not manifested itself as at all decisive in the fighting at Madrid, but you never can tell altogether what may be the reasons for the non-employment of this weapon against that city.
It is, however, of the more general aspects that I wish to speak to-day. I really feel that it is much better to refer to what one said in the past than to create a repetition of it in the present.

Mr. MacLaren: Not always.

Mr. Churchill: No, not always, but I do riot feel at any greater disability than a great many Members who sit in different parts of the House. I must ask the Government whether these aspects are also receiving attention:
Not less formidable than these material effects are the reactions which will be produced upon the mind of the civil population. We must expect that under the pressure of continuous air attack upon London at least 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 people would be driven out into the open country around the Metropolis. This vast mass of human beings. numerically far larger than any armies which have been fed and moved in war, without shelter and without food, without sanitation and without special provision for the maintenance of order, would confront the Government of the day with an administrative problem of the first magnitude, and would certainly absorb the energies of our small Army and of our Territorial Force. Problems of this kind have never been faced before, and although there is no need to exaggerate them, neither on the other hand is there any need to shrink from facing the immense unprecedented difficulties which they involve. Then there are the questions of the docks of London and the Estuary of the Thames. Every-one knows the dependence of this immense community, the most prosperous in the whole world, upon Eastern approaches by water.' '—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1934; COI. 859; Vol. 295.]

I want to ask that at some time or other we shall receive assurances that these aspects of the problem are being dealt with by His Majesty's Government, and when I say "dealt with" I do not mean merely that committee has been set up and has written out a paper scheme, but that definite, drastic, concrete steps have been taken in the appointment of individuals in the different localities, the marking of different areas, so that if, which Heaven avert, trouble should come upon us, there will be a practical scheme upon which and by which this immense and tortured population may be defended. Those words which the House has kindly allowed me to read—I apologise for repeating them—were spoken in 1934. Nothing that was essential to this problem is known now that was not known then. On the other hand almost everything in general has deteriorated. The German Air Force is substantially stronger than ours; our relations with certain foreign countries have been gravely impaired; and, therefore, everything shows how urgent these warnings were at the time they were given and with what greater emphasis they press upon us now. This particular sphere of our Defence, these air-raid precautions, although by no means primarily of extreme consequence, are in fact indispensable in a coherent scheme.
No doubt hon. Members have heard that there is talk sometimes, when these great war questions are being examined, of what is called a nine days war. That is a war which is so short that the scarcity of food and of raw material would not prevent an aggressor from striking down its victims and gaining a final result before the shortages became effective. It is an attempt, which this Bill seeks to face, by an act of mass terror to inflict such a slaughter on the women and children and helpless population that they would make the Government surrender the rights, possessions and freedom of the country. That is a most hideous form of attack, and without the provisions contained in this Bill we are certainly not capable of resisting it. This is an indispensable part in our method of resistance. How should such an attack be met? It can certainly not be met by any system of passive defence. It can only be met by well directed counter-objectives, against military targets, military objectives. I believe there is no doubt that if one side in an equal war endeavours


to cow and kill the civil population, and the other attacks steadily the military objectives, the focal points on which the opponents war-making capacity depends, victory will come to the side, all other things being equal, which avoids the horror of making war on the helpless and weak. But for this time will be needed—months will be needed.

Mr. Bellenger: What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by "other things being equal"?

Mr. Churchill: If the forces are equal, if the spirit is equal, if the loyalties are equal. But time will be needed for any effects of this kind to manifest themselves, and meanwhile the resisting power and the capacity for enduring punishment with fortitude and with the least possible slaughter on the part of the civilian population will be a vital factor. If it is thought that they can be made to give in or to make their Government give in before the regular operations of war can get to work, then this odious and frightful form of warfare comes much nearer to us, because it is much more likely to be employed. The way to prevent such a horrible form—we see it in the Far East—being employed, is to be obviously well organised, so as to make the crime not worth committing.
Therefore, our defence precautions, although only subsidiary to the general problem, may nevertheless make the difference not only between victory and defeat but, what is even more important, may make the difference between the thing being tried or not tried at all; may make the difference between the peace being broken and the peace being preserved. The vulnerable character of Great Britain and its great cities, particularly London, constitutes a danger not only of profound pre-occupation to ourselves, but one which if it is not remedied by constant and well-conceived measures may well draw down upon whole world the on-rush of a measureless catastrophe. Therefore, I find myself in the fullest accord with the Government in the Bill which they have at last produced. [Intoyuption.] I sometimes receive a little applause from this quarter and from that, but I doubt whether there will be any moment in my speech when I shall receive it simultaneously from both sides of the House.
The next milestone in this story is the circular of 9th July, 1935. By that time we had moved on. It was found, contrary to the expectation and the figures at the disposal of the Government, contrary to the hope they had expressed, that Germany had a large organised air force. Then there was this circular issued to local authorities. It contains these words:
Developments in the air have made it possible for air attacks on a large scale to be delivered, and delivered suddenly, on many parts of this country; and despite the steps which the Government are taking to increase the Air Force for home defence and the ground anti-aircraft defences, it is impossible to guarantee immunity from attack.…So long as the possibility of attack exists, it is necessary to create organisations to minimise the consequences of attack and, as it would not be possible to improvise effective measures on the spur of the moment in time of emergency, preparation must be made in time of peace.
That is July, 1935, and, of course, this Bill is a child of this circular. The process of its birth throes appears to have been severely protracted; in fact, when I took up this admirable Bill and began to look at it, I thought there must be some misprint, and that 4th November, 1937, should surely have been 4th November, 1935. There is nothing whatever that is known now which was not known then relative to this Bill. There is no reason why this Measure should not have been brought before Parliament when we reassembled in the autumn of 1935. I make no particular criticism upon individuals, least of all upon the present Home Secretary, because it has been stated from the other side of the House that since he came to the Home Office he has made the whole of this process move forward. But I must say this. I do feel that up to the present we have received no adequate explanation—perhaps there is one to come of the hiatus of two years which seems to have intervened in carrying forward the negotiations with local authorities and presenting a Bill to the House, and I say that a very serious responsibility rests upon all or any, whether they be national or local authorities, who have contributed in any way to this delay.
Of course, the main responsibility rests upon Ministers. Their power is overwhelming. They have the whole matter in their hands, and are supported by the great majority of Parliament. There is nothing they can ask Parliament for in this matter in which they will not be


whole-heartedly supported. It seems to me that we ought to hear some fuller explanation for this hiatus than anything which has been offered to us up to the present time. I hope and trust that this delay is not typical. I earnestly hope that what we have seen before us in this matter of air-raid precautions, which is necessarily discussed in the public eye, is riot representative of what has been going on in other and more active branches of our defences. I hope, indeed I am sure, it is not in that first and vital of our defences, the Royal Navy. If the responsibility of Ministers is paramount, local authorities also have a definite share of the burden, and although I listened with, I must admit, increasing sympathy to the extremely workmanlike account given by the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), I cannot feel that he has, on behalf of the local authorities, a very good tale to tell.
From the very beginning, 22 years ago, their first thought was to claim 100 per cent. from the Government for air-raid precautions. I challenge that principle absolutely. These passive precautions are not in any way on the same footing as the Fighting Services. We are told that this is a new feature in local government. But surely an attempt to undermine the freedom of a great people by destroying their women and children from the air, is a new feature in the government of man. These passive precautions are so intimately associated with the localities that they can only be administered by the localities, and without an earnest and helpful effort on the part of localities nothing that the central Government can do will be of any avail. If these measures are to be administered frugally and effectively, local authorities must bear their share of the expenditure, and must have an effective interest in the economies which they can create from day to day without prejudice to efficiency.
I am speaking of the percentage, arid I must say it seems to me that the attitude of the Government has been generous in the last degree. My right hon. Friend gave us a long account of the successive stages of the negotiations in the last few weeks. He began by offering to share the administrative services on the basis of 50–50. That, I should have thought, was a very fair offer. Still, after three or four separate concessions had been made, the position at this moment is

that the Government are bearing at least nine-tenths—[Interruption.]—I am told it is much more than that—of the whole expenditure. Taking also into consideration the provision of the appliances to protect civilians in the localities who would otherwise suffer most cruel tribulations, the Government are contributing at least nine-tenths of the total expenditure. Still the right hon. Gentleman opposite is not satisfied; still those for whom he speaks, and who with a consummate art of generalship he keeps together in a strong body, are not satisfied. Now we have reached a position where the whole burden is borne by the central Government except a minimum percentage which is insisted upon to ensure that local authorities have an interest in a healthy administration.
When I listened to the account which my right hon. Friend gave yesterday of the successive concessions he has offered, and which were so continuously rejected by the local authorities, I could not have blamed him or his Department if a certain mood of exasperation had stolen over them from time to time. But nothing like that seems to have occurred. On the contrary, they appear to be mild and meek in the last degree. They speak of the attitude of local authorities as being most friendly. When I look at the correspondence of 5th November, I find it remarkable that they should be so ready to kiss the rod. The local authorities take the point that considerably more than two years have passed since the Government announced that air-raid precautions had become a matter of grave urgency, and point out that the matter has moved no further forward. They repudiate all responsibility for the delay, but express their willingness to administer any funds which the central Government may place at their disposal.
I am not saying that this is really the view of local authorities, but that is undoubtedly the view contained in their letter of 5th November, and I say it is a captious and censorious document. But what is the attitude of my right hon. Friend and his Department? They say, "Thank you so much for your friendly letter." In ordinary life if a man says you have grossly neglected your duty, that he takes no responsibility for any evil consequences which may arise but is willing to spend money as he thinks best if you hand it over, one would hardly


reply, "Thank you so much old chap. I am grateful to you for your friendly attitude." It seems to me that on the question of the percentage grant the Government are not only justified but are bound in the public interest to stand strictly upon the figure they have fixed, and I have no doubt that not only Parliament but public opinion will support them in that course.
There is, however, another aspect to which I would bespeak the attention of the House. A proposal has been made that the Government should give an assurance that the burden upon any local authority shall not exceed the produce of a 2d. rate, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite stated yesterday that if this were agreed to, the Opposition of local authorities would be withdrawn. They would then start on this long process of cooperation from a basis on which all were agreed. That, I thought, was a very remarkable statement, because although the right hon. Gentleman is in a dual capacity here, one can hardly think that if he agreed in one capacity he would not at the same time influence his friends on the political side in his other capacity. I venture to ask the House to look patiently at this point. We certainly cannot have any local authority, drawing a blank cheque on the nation and spending money, perhaps out of all proportion to other authorities, and perhaps out of all proportion to what is deemed necessary, in the name of air-raid precautions. Nobody could say that that ought to take place. The taxpayer is obviously entitled to protection from abuses of that kind. But the statements which have been made by the Government show how very small and how very unlikely this particular contingency is. Last night, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, in a remarkable passage which I characterise as one of high candour and honesty, very admirably said:
If we were to make this concession … what would be the result? It would have no effect whatever—certainly not in 99 cases out of 100. The only possible authority which would be—
affected would be—as far as I can make out the OFFICIAL REPORT, which is not quite complete—
that one out of 100 that conducted its affairs without regard whatever to economy and with the utmost recklessness."—[OFFICIAL

REPORT, 15th November, 1937, col. 163, Vol. 329.]
Where, then, is the difference between the two sides of the House at the moment? Obviously, it is reduced to microscopic dimensions. It might well have been worth while fighting over a fifty-fifty arrangement: but this is not a question of more money; it is simply a question of framing certain words or provisions in the Bill to ensure what we none of us wish to allow, namely, the abuse by a particular authority, one in a hundred, of the general provisions of this Bill and of drawing unduly upon the national Exchequer.
I feel—and I throw this out to the House—it would be a very fine thing if we could be united in this matter. Frankly, I do not see, from anything that has been said by the Government, in what the substance of difference now consists. One could easily devise half a dozen ways in which one authority that misbehaved itself could be dealt with; some provision for taking over or for restraining could easily be inserted in special cases. Besides, I believe that even in the Bill itself there are considerable provisions which would give control over absolutely unnecessary or extravagant schemes, and prevent them from being executed by the local authorities. I say that not only is the House agreed upon the principle of the Bill, but there really is, in fact, entire agreement, apart from this very small point, upon the financial arrangements and the form which the Bill should take.
I do hope that some effort will be made, even at the eleventh hour, for, after all, it is a matter of public importance for us to reach complete agreement, not only an agreement between the national and local authorities, which is important, but which I have no doubt they will reach as soon as they get to work, but between both sides of the House. It would be a good thing to start on a common footing, nobody having got any advantage over anybody else. But, still more, it is of importance to try to deal with this matter on the basis of agreement when one looks outside this island and sees how these matters will be viewed from afar. If there is a Division I shall vote with the Government, but is it not possible to avoid a Division on what is a vital aspect of National Defence?
I do not like to think how the advocates of totalitarian dictatorships—I will put


it in that way so as to be quite impersonal—will grin when they read this sad story, and find that even at the end of it, after all these years of petty squabbling and delay, there is still a Division which has to be voted on in the House of Sommons. How will they be impressed? I am on the same side with hon. Gentlemen in desiring to resist these totalitarian systems. I am wholly with them in this matter; I should get just as bad a time under them as any other hon. Member, whether from the Clydebank or not. Self-preservation is one of the matters which we have in common. So do not let us quarrel when, as a matter of fact, we cannot afford to quarrel at the present time on these things.
How those persons who think that democracy is played out and that Parliamentary Government cannot make effective preparations for war or a policy of defence, will plume themselves upon the superiority of their institutions, where orders can be given on a gigantic scale and be instantly obeyed throughout communities of 40,000,000, 50,000,000 or 60,000,000 people, and where the entire community is organised, by terror and every kind of pressure, into one absolutely obedient instrument. The only chance for the defenders of liberty and democracy in a world like this is to substitute for the many advantages which despotic authority gains in the field of action a lively comradeship and association which enables them, by the co-operation of all quarters and of all sorts and kinds of citizens, to produce not merely an equally fine but a more flexible and more durable organisation. The fact that more than two or three years have passed in this squabble without any practical agreement is a reproach to the system of free government which we enjoy, love and seek to preserve.
I would not in these circumstances, after all that has happened, press the Government to concede another penny on the percentages. I would not ask them to deprive themselves of any means of preventing effectively reckless abuse, but if these objects can be obtained in a manner which carries with it the agreement of the party opposite and of local as well as national authorities, then surely it would be worth while to endeavour to achieve that, and to demonstrate this agreement in the most impressive manner

in our power. Therefore, I hope that either a further effort will be made in the few hours that remain—and I have seen much business done very quickly in this ancient House of Commons or that, when the Minister comes to reply to the Debate, he will give us more reasons than we have at present for the Government not being able to deal with the case of one recalcitrant or extravagant authority in a hundred.
I thank the House for listening to this statement, which is certainly not a partisan one, for the Government probably are not altogether in agreement with many of the things which I have said. But I have one other word to say before I close. I could not listen to the speech of the right hon. Gentlemen who spoke from the Front Opposition Bench without feeling that there was a great contrast between the first part of it and the last part of it. In the first part we saw him living up to his position as the chief municipal officer of the greatest city in the world, and also the most vulnerable city in the world. In the second part we saw him endeavouring to state the views of those on the bench on which he sits. What a contrast
I do not know who it was, but it may have been the Prime Minister, who the other day, in a speech in the country, reminded us of the well-known tale of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. The dual personality of the right hon. Gentleman opposite is very apparent, but what we have never seen before or what I have very rarely seen before—and what we were privileged to witness yesterday was the actual public transmogrification of Dr. Jekyll into Mr. Hyde before our very eyes. It was most remarkable to see the right hon. Gentleman sweep away all of his responsibility, all of his care and all of this extremely reasonable discussion—so formidable in Parliamentary Debate on the difficult topics with which he was dealing—and then to come back to the old party tags which in more easy and quiet times may well be the stock-in-trade between politicians on the two Front Benches.
When the right hon. Gentleman suggested to the House that if bombing aeroplanes and the idea of using bombing from the air existed in the world to-day, it was all due to the fact that Lord Londonderry had said something or had not


said something, that he ought to have done something or ought not to have done something, at Geneva or in another place, he put a strain not only on the credulity, but upon the decorum of the House of Commons. When the right hon. Gentleman proceeded further to suggest that Lord Londonderry had resumed his time-honoured function of extending party hospitality on the eve of the Session and had been chosen president of the National Union of Conservative Associations because the new Prime Minister was more favourable to air bombing than his predecessor, then I say that the right hon. Gentleman, on whose career the House and the country look with great interest and very great hope, entered a region which baffles even the most extensive vocabulary; where the facetious monstrosity of his assertions defies rejoinder, and happily they do not need it because of their inherent folly.

4.44 P.m.

Mr. Leonard: I have listened with intense interest to most of the speeches that have been made. The assertion that struck me most was that made by some hon. Members that the observations that have been circulated by the local authorities do not truly reflect the opinion of the people within their jurisdiction. I cannot understand how it is that in a matter of such moment as this such an assertion can be ma de as that the elected representatives of the people in the counties, towns and boroughs are not capable of truly reflecting the desires of the people in their areas. Therefore, I intend in my speech to reiterate the opinion of the Glasgow Corporation, and in doing so, I wish to state that ample opportunities have presented themselves in that city for having this important matter discussed. The people of the city of Glasgow have taken the opportunities so presented from time to time to make clear their attitude on the question of air-raid precautions. It is, therefore, proper for the Glasgow Corporation to write to the Members for that city and to state that while they will readily co-operate with the Government in carrying out air-raid precautions they are definitely of opinion that the whole cost of the service in question should be borne by the Government. We, as representatives of Glasgow, are asked to give support to that claim, and that

support I readily give, believing the claim to be a just one.
With regard to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, may I say that it is the case, as he has admitted, that a great share of this burden will be placed upon the local authorities? But I cannot agree with his suggestion that air-raid precautions represent something totally different from the operations of the Army and Navy. It is only a question of degree. It has now been found that warfare, which was previously prosecuted through the medium of the Army and Navy, requires a new feature. That new feature is the air arm and related to it, is the necessity for these precautions. With regard to the question of responsibility, I admit that there is something to be said for the view that administrative bodies should have placed upon them some degree of financial burden as a guarantee of economy. The illustration which comes to my mind in that connection is that of health services. It is true that the actions of a local authority are closely related to health conditions in the part of the country over which it has jurisdiction and that the health services also have their effect on the country in general. But I do not think the same argument applies to air-raid precautions. I think that responsibility for policy in this case must reside in this House and that the policy must be national in its character. Therefore, the Government is the body which should be responsible for maintaining the whole of the burden.
The right hon. Gentleman said that we could not have local authorities drawing a blank cheque on the nation. When he said that, it occurred to me that many distressed areas, including Glasgow, have been forced to bear what is really the nation's burden in dealing with unemployment and the destitution which it has caused. I think unemployment and its attendant evils, must be accounted as the result of national policy and that the responsibility ought to rest on this House. In the same way, the responsibility for air-raid precautions ought to rest on this House. It would be possible for me to go into details of the amount of finance which Glasgow has had to direct to its social services but to some extent that ground has been covered already and the subject will probably be touched upon


later. I wish however to make a few references to the actual precautions which are here proposed as they relate to Glasgow. I admit that London, in this matter, occupies a first-line position. That to a great extent is due to the possibility which it offers an enemy of breaking the morale of the nation by means of air attack. But while admitting that, we must also bear in mind that there are other places which may be just as vulnerable points of attack as London, and Glasgow is one of them. Glasgow has a population which is more densely packed than the population of any part of London. It is situated in an area where munition works and docks and heavy industries in general are closely packed. Therefore, we must look upon Glasgow also, as a point which would be favourably regarded by an enemy who was contemplating an attack by air.
I propose to be even more parochial than I have been and to refer to my own constituency. It is my duty to represent the division of Glasgow known as St. Rollox. It has a nation-famed if not world-famed district called Cowcaddens, one of the parts of the United Kingdom which is a disgrace to this great and wealthy nation, not because of the people who reside there but because of those who have forced people to reside there for so many years. I have been rather intrigued with the idea that should any threat of air attack arise, the people are to be told to go to their houses as a means of safety. Safety from what? We have been informed that in the future, the possibility is that liquid gases will be rained from the skies. Hon. Members must take my word for it, but it can be proved if necessary, that there are houses in the St. Rollox division, the roofs of which would not keep out rain, never mind liquid fire. It is nonsense to suggest that going to their homes will be of any help to those people, in the event of an attack. I have read carefully the proposals with regard to gas proofing, and I say emphatically that there are thousands of houses in Cowcaddens alone which are not capable of giving any protection against permeating gases. There are houses in that district so bad that when the water is turned on in one tenement, it has to be shut off in three or four other tenements because the pipes will not bear the extra pressure entailed. There are places where from the staircase on one

floor it is possible to see right through to the floor above. Of what use is it to suggest to people that they should go to homes like that in search of safety? Unsafe buildings are provided for in the Government's proposals but there are hardly any safe buildings in the district to which I refer. They are all waiting to be torn down.
I am not competent to deal with the question of the dimensions of the shelters which are to be provided, but it passes my comprehension how shelters are to be provided for a community in which nearly every house is overcrowded in normal circumstances. Most of these houses are themselves overcrowded in a way which would not be permitted in the case of a safety shelter under war conditions. Therefore, I do not see that the people whom I represent are going 10 have any protection under this Bill. Notwithstanding the statements made by some hon. Members yesterday with regard to evacuation, I do not treat the proposal put forward by the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) as light and airy talk. On a subject such as this I would not dub anybody's remarks "light and airy talk." I assume that we are all endeavouring to be as earnest as we can, knowing the awful consequences that might result from lack of attention to this question. Therefore, I recur without apology to the possibility of, at least, partial evacuation of population in parts of the country where no effective protection can be provided by the proposals in the Bill. I think that is a matter for consideration. It seems to me to be the only thing that can be arranged in the time at our disposal.
We have also been informed during this Debate that the war against which we are taking these precautions may be a "nine days war." That is all the more reason why we should try to anticipate what the objectives of an enemy will be. If it is to be a quick war, if it is to be over soon—and that is one thing which I doubt very much—my suggestion is that it will be a war of such intensity as to make it all the more essential that we should take into special consideration the position of places like Glasgow and other parts of the country which are not capable of being protected by the means which are here proposed. I do not wish to belittle any of the efforts that have


been made to prepare the people and to safeguard life, but I think it is rather too easy an assumption that the "trial black-outs" that we have had and are to have, will be followed exactly in every detail when the real thing happens. The "trial black-outs" may give one or two suggestions to the people who are at the pivotal points, but I am rather chary of accepting the view that it will be as easy to control the general situation from the pivotal points in the case of a real "black-out" as in the case of a "trial black-out." The Minister ought to give more consideration to the possibilities of evacuation in the parts of the country which will be specially affected should an emergency arise.
I also wish to touch upon the possibility of industrialists having to purchase equipment for the safeguarding of those in their employment. Here is a chance to start early in the application of control to the price of the necessary equipment. I am informed that there are large organisations in Glasgow and elsewhere making this equipment. Some of it will be issued free, but some of it will have to be purchased. I think it was the hon. Member for North Islington who said it had been estimated that the total cost of pumps to keep a cellar clear of gas worked out, in the case of one factory, at £4 per worker. I am not competent to say whether that is a fair sum or not, but in view of what has happened in previous wars, and of what is happening now in connection with the production of munitions, immediate action should be taken to control the prices of this equipment. I do not take part in this Debate with any joy. The circumstances that have been presented to us as a forecast of what the next war may be, make one very perturbed. It is not, perhaps, permitted to introduce on this occasion questions of general policy, but I cannot help feeling that if we would, by every means, strive for peace and for a total departure from all tendencies which make for differences between the nations, it would be much more effective than any of the precautions proposed in this Bill.

4.58 p.m.

Sir Percy Harris: We have had a very remarkable speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). I was surprised at his moderation. I anticipated that he would take

advantage of this opportunity to be rather cruel, because if ever a man was justified as a prophet I think it can be said of the right hon. Gentleman on this occasion. His moderation was most marked, and he finished his speech almost on a note of praise rather than criticism. What puzzles some of us on all sides of the House is that the right hon. Gentleman should be a private Member. I am not one who admires all his views or opinions, but if we have to face this problem of Defence on a large scale, surely no one is more suited to carry out the necessary policy than the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know whether he is absent from the Government because Barkis is not willin', or whether his absence is due to jealousy, and perhaps to the fear that his ability and capacity would rather dwarf those of some of his colleagues. We have heard from him to-day, it must be admitted, the speech of an elder statesman, very helpful, very constructive, and very reasonable, and not by any means in that mischievous spirit in which sometimes, not too rarely, he indulges.
I was going to say that there has been two years' delay, but the right hon. Gentleman gave ample evidence that there has been three years' delay. If in this wicked world of dictators and totalitarian States we have to face this danger, I do not think any part of the House is justified, whoever is to blame, in bringing about more delay, and certainly my hon. Friends and I do not intend to do anything of the sort. This Bill may have its faults, it may be too late, and there may be weaknesses in its financial provisions, but it is about time that we took action in the controversies as to the financial responsibilities and liabilities. One think that I am surprised at is the absence, except for a very short period, of the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence. I always understood that he was appointed with a roving commission to look after the whole of our defence as opposed to a sectional attitude, and I should have thought the House had a right to claim his guiding hand in this matter.
We have had a very capable and competent speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, but if we are to have one Minister to deal with this problem, I should have thought it would have been wiser to have entrusted it to the Minister of Health. The right


hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary is not usually associated with local government, except through the police, and it is not suggested that this is a matter for the police. We really want to get the good will and co-operation of the Minister of Health, and I think that when it comes into practice we shall get smoother working of the machinery of local government if he is associated with its direction. However that may be, as far as my friends and I are concerned, we attach great importance to associating the local authorities with this work. If it is to be satisfactory and to go smoothly, we want the good will, not of this Department or of that Department, but of the population as a whole, and the population as a whole instinctively and naturally turn to their town hall and their local authority for guidance and direction. It would be against all the best traditions of our country to develop the idea of a Ministry of the Interior, a Government Department, interfering with the ordinary daily life of the subject. Therefore, I am all for the local authorities being associated with this work.
Speaking as one who was for 28 years a member of a local authority, I have always taken the line that if a local authority is to be entrusted with any local government of any character, in other words, if any work is to be done through local government machinery, apart from a Government Department, there must be some financial liability, however small, and therefore I do not dissent from the rule laid down by the Minister that there should be some financial liability, small though it may be. But it is a problem, and the right hon. Gentleman admitted it in introducing our old friend the formula, that played so great a part in the Local Government Act introduced by the present Prime Minister when he was Minister of Health. However, even then it was found that the difficulties were so great that it was almost impossible fairly to distribute the burden, and if it applied to local government in a matter of Poor Law administration, it even more applies to questions of National Defence.
Take Bournemouth, an enormously wealthy district with a very high rateable value. Its risk of attack from the air, I would submit, is comparatively small as compared with the risk of an industrial district or mining town in the north-east of England, with a very low rateable

value. The same argument applies to London, which has always been a problem in the matter of the distribution of burdens. Take the districts of Westminster and Poplar, more or less the same size, and with very much the same population. It may be argued with some reason that Westminster, being the seat of government, with Royal Palaces and so on, runs special risk from air attack. But then Poplar has the docks. Some people say that it would be a good thing for the War Office to be wiped out, though I cannot go so far as that, but I submit that, from the point of view of strategy, the docks are for more valuable targets than even the War Office, and it would be far more dangerous to London if they were destroyed.
But when it comes to rateable value, in Westminster the produce of a rd. rate is £40,000, according to the latest figures that I have had, whereas a 1d. rate in Poplar brings in only £4,000. Therefore, however ingenious your formula may be, when it comes to carrying out these new duties of air defence the burden on Poplar must be very much greater. Then you have miles and miles of poor houses, low and rather badly built, where, as the hon. Member above the Gangway has already pointed out, the risk of attack and of damage done from the air must be more serious than where you have well-to-do houses which the people can evacuate themselves, without assistance from the State, and where you have buildings of a character that may provide the necessary shelter from air attack.
I have an Amendment on the Paper. I do not suggest that it is inspired out of my own mind. It comes at the request of the local authorities, and I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping emphasised the point of it. I suggest that it is not an unreasonable request, and I have so framed the Amendment that it will not encourage extravagance, and that, if any particular local authority goes in for an extravagant scheme that would involve expenditure over a 2d. rate, the Home Secretary's veto would automatically come into operation. I think that gives him an adequate safeguard against waste, inefficiency, or extravagance with public money when found by the State. On the other hand, under my Amendment his scheme will secure the association of local authorities, those authorities finding some of the


money and having some of the financial responsibility.
While on this subject may I refer incidentally to the docks? This applies not only to London but also to Liverpool, where the Mersey Dock and Harbour Board are concerned. If Poplar is to be liable for the cost of the whole defence of the docks, or, rather, the safety of the workers in the docks, it is going to be a very big liability for Poplar, and I think that some of the difficulties might be met if the docks and harbours are excluded for these purposes from the locality in which they happen to be and treated under special machinery. I put in that plea especially at the request of my friends from Liverpool and from the point of view of London as well. The docks here are located, not only in Poplar, but also in Bermondsey, West Ham, East Ham, Deptford, Southwark, and Barking, some of which places are inside and some outside the county of London, and if they are to be responsible for the defence of the civil population working in those dock areas, it will be a very big liability. On the other hand, if my Amendment is accepted when the Financial Resolution is before us, that difficulty will be overcome.
I will not take up too much time, as there are many hon. Members left who wish to support the plea by the right hon. Member for Epping that we should show a united front in this matter of the defence of the civil' population, and that the reasonable attitude of the local authorities should now, at the eleventh hour, be recognised either by the acceptance of the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison)—who has not followed my words, though probably their inspiration came from the same place—or alternatively, if the right hon. Gentleman thinks my words give more protection, by the acceptance of my Amendment.

5.13 p.m.

Mr. Simmonds: After the usual authoritative and highly palatable speech to which we have listened from my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), we have had a thoroughly constructive contribution from the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). I am delighted that the sense of public duty of himself and his

friends has decided them not to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill, and I trust that that sense will be sufficiently contagious to cross the Gangway before a couple of hours have passed. Air-raid precautions are a wholly new field of national endeavour, and I think I am right in saying that this is the first occasion upon which the Government have had an opportunity of learning the views of this House upon this subject. I think the Government have needed that guidance, and I am certain, from the wide range and interesting nature of the topics raised in the Debate, that they have received that guidance. All hon. Members who have sat through this Debate will have had impressed upon their minds the great agreement that exists in all parts of this House on two points in connection with air-raid precautions. The one is the imperative necessity of evacuation, and the other is the importance of bomb-proof shelters. I fear that in these two respects—and I only refer to these two now, because in other ways I think the Government have done well—the Home Office have adopted a hesitating, if not a negative, policy. It strikes me that in these matters, which raise grave problems of cost, the Government have been too apt to set a limit of finance and to formulate the policy thereafter.
The Home Secretary in his admirable speech at the opening of this Debate spoke of the various perils which our forefathers have faced throughout the centuries, perils which, at the time, were novel and frightening to them, but which they mastered by their ingenuity and determination, and handed down to us as something which we can contemplate with more equanimity. Surely Governments in the past never said, in facing those perils, "We have so much money to spend; can we meet the peril with that money or must we bow to it to a certain extent?" On the contrary, I am certain that they said, "This peril must be mastered, high though the expense may be." I feel that that is the position to which the country, the Government and this House must come in the end in regard to the evacuation and shelters. I refer to the evacuation of areas that may be targets for enemy aircraft, as separate from those areas which may suffer indiscriminate bombing. They must suffer heavy punishment unless in the course of the next few years our defensive equipment, in


which I include guns, aircraft, searchlights and barrages, advance in -technique to an enormous degree. It goes without saying that if the Government do not evacuate the people from those areas in an orderly manner, the people will evacuate themselves in a disorderly manner.
Now is the time to consider this problem of evacuation, vast as it is. Bound up with it is an important legislative point which has not found its way into this Bill. It is the question whether the Government or the local authorities should have the right to compel evacuation from certain areas. I believe that that right should be taken by the Goevrnment, because I fail to see why those citizens who voluntarily enter into the air-raid precautions services should be called upon to go into an area which will suffer almost entire annihilation in order to rescue those who have been invited to leave it, but have refused. I trust that the Government are preparing for their own evacuation. Although I do not believe it will be an event that will happen for many a long day, they might in doing that be preparing for the evacuation of a Government formed by hon. Members opposite. This is a problem which cannot be left until hostilities break out. There is an opportunity for constructive work of major importance in this respect, and I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary could give the House an assurance that it is being considered.
It is on the question of bomb-proof shelters that I join issue with the Government most fundamentally. I was interested in what my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping said on this point. I have from time to time asked questions on this subject, and we have been told that for high explosive bombs 20 feet of reinforced concrete is necessary as a protection against a direct hit, and for armour-piercing bombs of 500 lbs., some 15 feet of reinforced concrete. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping said, armour-piercing bombs will not be used indiscriminately against the civil population; they will be used against the decks of warships and against military and naval targets. If, therefore, we are to get a right view-point in this matter of shelters, we should wholly disregard the armour-piercing bomb. Having with many of my hon. Friends made a, careful study of this matter in the last few month,

I have come to the conclusion that the missile against which we ought to protect ourselves is the 500 lbs. explosive bomb, and those beneath that weight.
The French Government, who have done a great deal more research in this matter than we have, are recommending that four to five feet of reinforced concrete is adequate to resist such bombs. One may take into consideration the thickness of floors, particularly of ferro-concrete floors, above a shelter. Thus, if there are four or five floors in a building, the thickness of the roof of the shelter need be only three-and-a-half to four feet of ferro-concrete. That is clearly a very different problem from the 15 or 20 feet of reinforced concrete which my right hon. Friends have given on various occasions at Question Time. Indeed, it creates a wholly different problem to which the Government and the House should address themselves. The problem is most serious with people congregating continuously at known points, and that obviously occurs when they are at work. I cannot contemplate seeing thousands of people congregated in works without any form of bomb-proof shelter. I am constructing at this moment two typical nuclei shelters, each to take 25 people, complete with technical equipment, in order to gain some impression of what the cost of preparing bomb-proof shelters for industrial establishments may be. As far as I have been able to determine, the figure given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was excessive and must, I think, have been based on the 20 feet of concrete.
I believe that shelters which will resist 500 lb. bombs, even a direct hit, may be constructed with all the necessary technical equipment for £40 a head, or for £1,000 for a shelter for 25 people. Suppose an employer were mindful to put down one or two shelters experimentally. That is clearly not a matter which can continue indefinitely. The protection is for the employé, and in time of war it is primarily for the nation that that protection of the employé is given so that he may continue to support the men in the front line trench. Therefore, it is clear that this question affects three parties—the employé, the employer and the Government. While I can well understand that the Government do not wish to assume the whole responsibility of these shelters, I see no reason why these three parties should not contribute equally to-


wards the construction of them. A contribution of 3d. per week from each party for 25 years would meet the cost of the shelters. It may be suggested that 25 years is a long time, but I would say in reply that if that were done we should have a mighty defensive organisation which might last as long as the air bomb was a menace and would place a whole different complexion on our strength, our foreign policy and our influence in the world. The contribution of the Government would work out at £13,000,000 per £1000,000 people. That does not seem a very great charge if the importance of the bomb-proof shelters be agreed.
I hope that we may hear something of the Government's intention in this matter. Even if they cannot say immediately that they propose to encourage these bomb-proof shelters, will they say that they will entirely review the problem if they accept the contention, which has ofttimes been expressed here, that the armour-piercing bomb is no justification for inaction? There is also the question of sandbags. Vast quantities will be needed to block up windows. Can my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary tell us anything of the Home Office preparations in connection with this point?
As I read this Bill, I assume that it is only a first instalment of a series of air-raid precautions measures, because there is no mention of the fundamentally important problem of the insurance of property. At the moment, it is impossible to insure property against war risks. When we talk of property, do not let us think only of property belonging to companies and corporations and to the rich, because there are millions of humble people who have bought their houses, and there are now no fewer than 1,000,000 people who are purchasing their houses through building societies. Are they to see their life-savings invested in these houses wiped out without expecting the Government to find replacements? Indeed, they will expect replacements, and I should feel much relief if the Government could tell us of their proposals to end the present impasse. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys), in his admirable speech yesterday, made several excellent and practical suggestions. One of them which appealed to me was that there should be some internal reorganisation

and expansion at the Home Office. I believe that the conception that the French have a fourth service of defence, a service of passive defence, brings into the picture the wide scope of air-raid precautions which is much larger than the somewhat diminutive organisation we have so far constructed. In addition to the expansion of the Air-Raid Precautions Department I should like to see it entrusted to a junior Minister, similar to the Minister of Transport or the Secretary for Mines. I am satisfied from what I have seen that, admirable though the efforts of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary have been, this is work for a full-time Minister.
So far as the country is concerned—and it is the country in the end which has to work these air-raid precautions—we have to obtain an entire change of mind. At the moment there is public indifference to this problem, and I appeal for use to be made of all modern methods of publicity in order to bring home to the heads of households their responsibility to their families, because it is upon them that responsibility for protecting the women and children in their houses falls. If we are to make the country as secure as it can be against the menace of air raids we must all adopt a new outlook. Noting in the papers from day to day the activities of the Government and of local authorities, and asking oneself, "Is that a piece of pure folly, bearing in mind the possibilities of air raids?" How often do we have to say that that is indeed the case.
I will give two or three examples of what I have in mind. There is about to be erected near an obvious military objective on the outskirts of London a large series of working-class flats. They are being put up by a local authority which is rehousing the people moved from another area under a street improvement scheme. I cannot conceive how any local authority would do such a thing, but there it is, and those people will be living beside this clear and obvious target. Secondly, we are putting many bridges over railways, and as soon as the bridge is erected the level crossing is demolished. The obvious thing to do is to leave the level crossing, in case the bridge is destroyed by bombs in time of war, as it very likely will be. Further, the Government have been erecting shadow


factories up and down the country. From an engineering standpoint probably the most outstanding is the Austin shadow factory, just outside the Austin works at Longbridge. If that factory had been built in Germany it would have consisted of about 50 buildings, too yards apart, each with its own air-raid shelter, but we have 17½ acres under one roof as the Austin shadow factory. A bigger piece of folly, in the light of the air meance, I cannot conceive. Then, we are steadily eliminating smaller electricity undertakings. The larger electricity works are nearly always erected at vulnerable points along the estuaries of rivers, where they can be seen, particularly at night, with the utmost ease. When these big stations are bombed there will be no smaller stations to come in to supply the load.
One omission from the Bill has not escaped notice, and that is, there is no compulsion in the case of local authorities which fail to undertake air-raid precautions. I have given very much thought to the question whether local authorities which fail to do their duty should be compelled to do it or should be displaced by the Government, and I am satisfied that the Government have done the right thing in not including compulsion in the Bill, because I believe it will mean that a great deal more thought will be given to the election of local authorities if electors know that their own safety against air attack is involved. I am certain that all Members on the other side of the House will agree with me that it will be wholly to the good to see more responsible representatives elected to local authorities.
Finally, I want to come to what is the main issue on this Bill, and that is finance. The right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), in his admirable speech, which I am sure it gave him much pleasure to deliver, suggested that the cost of the air-raid precautions ought to be a wholly national charge, but I notice from an Amendment on the Order Paper that it is now suggested that no grants should be made after a 2d. rate has been expended. That would mean that after the 2d. rate had been spent the whole of this Bill and the precautions it envisages would cease to operate. That seems a wholly undesirable change to make. Whatever we may do with regard

to finance do not let us say that immediately we reach a certain level nothing more shall be done. Clearly that would not be fulfilling our obligations to the population whom we have to protect. I fancy that neither the suggestion of the right hon. Member for South Hackney, nor the suggestion in the Amendment of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green really meets the point, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping said, surely there is not much now left between the contending parties.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday threw out an olive branch by suggesting that after a certain time he might review the position which had then been reached. No one can say what the position may be in two or three years. If we have not, by the grace of God, by then have suffered hostilities, we may have a sufficient muster of air-raid precautionary equipment, and the question of subsequent expense may be of small consequence. On the other hand, if bomb-proof shelters are provided, as I think they should he, the expenditure may be up to the 2d. rate, or possibly higher. If we do have bomb-proof shelters, and I think they are imperative, the rate may be high.
We ask the Secretary of State this: Could he not give to us and to the local authorities an undertaking that after, say, three years, he will review the financial provisions of the Bill? If he could put a Clause to that effect into the Bill I believe it would go a long way to close the ranks and allow us to go forward together in this most important matter. Lastly, as I have appealed to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, so I am going to appeal to the right hon. Gentleman opposite. His party have agreed that rearmament is necessary and have agreed in principle not to vote against rearmament. I am entirely with the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green in saying that this work is part of rearmament, and I think that in the face of external dangers we might close our ranks to-day and avoid voting against this Measure. Therefore, as I have appealed to the Home Secretary to meet the local authorities by undertaking a review in three years, I do make a most earnest appeal to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to let this Measure go through without a Division.

5.40 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): I do not rise to make a second speech, but to make a short statement in answer to a series of appeals which have been addressed to me. Let me say at the beginning of my statement that I entirely dissociate myself from the criticisms which were made yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) today of the dilatory methods of my Department. As to the course which events have taken in the last two years, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will deal at length with the criticisms which have been made, and when he has done so the House will see how groundless those charges are. But it is not for that purpose that I rose to say a few words. My right hon. Friend the Member for Epping is perfectly right in saying that the margin of difference between hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite and myself is a very narrow one. One of the results of this long chapter of discussions, one of its most satisfactory results, has been to diminish to a very great extent the margin of difference which at the beginning divided the various parties to the negotiations, and I think it is fair to say that the only point of substance now between the right hon. Gentleman opposite and some of the bodies for whom he has spoken, and the Government, is the single issue of the excess expenditure over a 2d. rate. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) and the right hon. Gentleman opposite have Amendments to the Financial Resolution dealing with this single issue. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green who, I understand, does not intend to elaborate his views on the Financial Resolution, stated them in some detail this afternoon. The case he has made is that there should be a veto upon the expenditure of local authorities over a 2d. rate.

Sir P. Harris: Any schemes which involved the local authority in expenditure over a 2d. rate.

Sir S. Hoare: I accept the way in which the hon. Member has described his Amendment, but I am not sure that that is the objective of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. I rather gather that his objective was not to veto expenditure which was above a fixed

amount but, rather, to ensure that expenditure exceeding a 2d. rate should be met by the Exchequer.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: Quite right.

Sir S. Hoare: The two objectives are not quite the same.

Sir P. Harris: They are really the same.

Sir S. Hoare: I am very anxious to eliminate this margin of difference if it is humanly possible to do so. I tell the House that, after very careful consideration of this Amendment and with a desire to remove any differences that may exist between us, my colleagues and I have come to the view that this is not the best way to do it. We do not feel that this is a practicable way of doing it. We do not feel, taking first the objective of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green, that it is possible, with questions which involve the issues of life and death, to put a definite veto on public expenditure. The only instance I have been able to discover is that of not more than an expenditure of a id. rate on public libraries. Hon. Members will see at once the great difference between a minor expenditure of this kind and the far greater issues which are raised by air-raid precautions. I believe, therefore, that it is not practicable to adopt this method of the veto.
Further than that, I am quite sure that hon. Members would agree that it would be unwise to withdraw the check on economy that is imposed by the fact that a local authority has to take a share in this expenditure. This check of the local share is really the only effective check against extravagant schemes. It is not sufficient to have the check of the approval of the schemes to be put into operation, as so much of this expenditure depends upon the way in which the local authorities administer these services on the spot. I must tell the House that the Government cannot recede from the position that they have maintained the whole way through these discussions that over the whole field of this expenditure, whether it exceeds a 1d. or a 2d. rate or whether it falls short of a 1d. or a 2d. rate, there must be some local share of the expenditure in the cost of the precautions.
Moreover, the Government, in maintaining this position contend that cases of the kind mentioned, in which the expenditure


will exceed a 2d rate, are so unlikely that the House need not take them into account. In our view they could arise only in one of two ways. One way would be as a result of great extravagance by a particular local authority. Hon. memshould remember that a 2d rate will mean in many cases that the State would be spending the equivalent of a 6d., a 7d. or an 8d. rate and that we should be dealing, therefore, with an expenditure far above the kind of scale which we contemplate. The only other way in which expenditure of this kind might come about—I hope it will not come about—would be if, as a result of a deterioration in the state of the world, there were a demand for much greater air-raid precautions than we at present contemplate. In that case, I say at once, it would be necessary for the Government to reconsider the whole position with the local authorities. Our scheme of the Bill is based upon the plan that we think adequate in the present situation. If a new situation were created which called for plans of much greater scale, obviously we would accept the position that we should have to reconsider the financial arrangements.

Mr. R. Acland: In what way would it be possible for conditions to deteriorate except by the actual outbreak of war?

Sir S. Hoare: I can contemplate, short of actual outbreak of war, demands springing up for greater precautions. If the new conditions were on such a scale as to alter our present plans, then I would say that a new situation had arisen. I suggest to the House that the proper way to reassure the local authorities and to remove this last item of difference between us is to follow the lines just suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds). I am prepared to go further than I went in the Debate yesterday, when I told the House that we had had discussions during the course of the negotiations in which I had suggested that we might put a time limit to the Bill, and that there was some difference of opinion at that time 'between the local authorities as to whether a time limit would be useful or not.
My further inquiries go to show that a time limit would be useful and it would go a. very long way to reassure them. I noticed, for instance, in certain of the

resolutions which had been passed by some of these associations, that emphasis is laid upon the great advantage of having a time limit at the end of which there would necessarily come revision of the financial arrangements between the local authorities and the Exchequer. Accordingly, I am prepared to accept the suggestion thrown out by my hon. Friend the Member for Duddeston and to put down a new Clause which would make the assurance which I have already given doubly sure, and that will make it clear that there shall be a comprehensive revision in three years of the working of the financial provisions of the Bill. I am prepared to put down that new Clause for consideration in the Committee stage. I believe that when the local authorities see this new Clause on paper the great majority of them will realise that the last of their anxieties has been removed.
Further than that, I hope in future to keep in close contact with them and to discuss with them any other difficulties which may arise after the Bill becomes law. Lastly, I would remind hon. Members that this is the procedure which was adopted, I believe with great satisfaction, to the local authorities in the matter of the block grant. When the block grant came into operation it was specified that there should be at given times revision to see how it was working. There has already been one such revision and I understand that it has given great satisfaction to the local authorities. I am prepared to adopt a similar method in the case of the revision of these arrangements, and to put down a Clause which will carry out this undertaking.

Mr. Sandys: Will the right hon. Gentleman incorporate in this new Clause the assurance which he has given that, it, before three years elapse the whole standard of air-raid precautions as demanded by the Government goes up, there will be a reconsideration of the financial position?

Sir S. Hoare: I am not sure whether that part of the undertaking which I have given to-day would be the kind that one could put into the form of a clause, but I will look into the point.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: I can speak again only with the leave of the House. I am sure that we have all listened with the


greatest care to every word that the Secretary of State has said. Speaking for myself and, I am sure, for my hon. Friends, we have listened to it not only with great care but with the very earnest hope that he would say something to enable us to withdraw this Amendment on the Second Reading stage, and so enable the House to give a unanimous Second Reading to the Bill. I assure the House that that is as I would have wished it to be and as my hon. Friends would have wished it to be. None of us disputes the necessity for some special Measure such as is before the House, although we look upon the necessity with the deepest regret and deplore the reasons which have led to it. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that the idea that he has put before the House is not new. It was advanced by him and his officers to the local authorities during the course of our negotiations as a solution of the financial apprehensions which we had in our minds. We were unable to accept it as a financial solution. In the circumstances, I cannot advise my hon. Friends to do other than to go to a Division on our Amendment on the Second Reading and upon our Amendment to the Financial Resolution.
It would, nevertheless, be ungracious of me if I did not say that we appreciate, as far as it has gone, what the right hon. Gentleman has said, although it is not new, because it came out in what took place before. We are apprehensive about this municipal expenditure upon air-raid precautions, which everybody substantially agrees is intimately related to national Defence and the cost of which will be negligible compared with the £,500,000,000 which the Government are spending on national Defence. It is unjust, improper, and not conducive to clean-cut administration of the job itself for the State to do other than take complete charge of it, to pay for it and to put the local authorities under orders on behalf of the Government in this matter.
I assume from what the right hon. Gentleman says that the proposed new Clause will contain a time limit to the operation of the financial portion of the Bill, and that at the end of that time there will be revision and reconsideration. Having regard to the dead set of the Government on the principle of a 2d. limit, if municipal expenditure then requires the

imposition of a 2d. rate or more, I am not at all sure what more hope there will be that the local authorities will obtain the required concession from the Government than there is now, when the Government will not give it. On this point of extravagance against local authorities which is being hammered at us time and time again—

Mr. Churchill: Individual and exceptional authorities.

Mr. Morrison: The words of the right hon. Gentleman comfort me enormously, but I do not know which individual authority he means and whether it is an authority in Essex or somewhere else.

Mr. Churchill: I did not mean to be controversial, but I was only hoping that the right hon. Gentleman would address himself to the question of what security he can give to the Government on his plan that a particular authority which misbehaves would be under the control of the Exchequer and would not be drawing a blank cheque. I wanted to know what solution of that point is contained in his proposal.

Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman will know from his own Ministerial and administrative experience that there are a number of devices whereby the State can protect itself beyond the point, the very considerable point, to which it will protect itself under the terms of the Bill. There are such things as acting in default and transferring the powers of one local authority to another local authority. On any normal local service I would fight to the death against the State being in a position to give precise and meticulous orders to popularly elected members of local authorities, but on this matter, which I say ought to be national, and upon the technical decision and direction of which the national security will depend, I do not disguise the fact that I am prepared to forgo that local autonomy. Given proper financial guarantees for the local authorities, I would accept almost any rights of instruction, order and control that the Secretary of State liked to take in the Bill and which, indeed, I am bound to say I think he ought to have in a matter of life and death of this kind.
I appreciated the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) though I disagreed with


a great deal of it and regretted some of it, and I thank him for the helpful intentions of that part of his speech, but I am going into this matter with my eyes open, as are the local authorities. We do not regard it as a precedent, and we will never use it as a precedent for any future 100 per cent. arguments about normal local government services, but we say that this question is a national question, and, in the interests of the State, ought to be so regarded. That is the remedy for the extravagant local authority, if there be such. It must be remembered that all this expenditure will be approved expenditure, and the scheme itself must be approved by the right hon. Gentleman. May I put a counter-point on the question of extravagance? The right hon. Gentleman can not only amend the scheme of a local authority on the basis that it is extravagant, but he can amend it on the basis that in his judgment not enough is being spent. He also can be extravagant. We have heard from the hon. Member for Dudcleston (Mr. Simmonds) all sorts of expensive ideas. He says that there is going to be a 2d. rate, and probably more—

Mr. Simmonds: I did not say that. I said that obviously there might be, and clearly there may be.

Mr. Morrison: He went much beyond what the right hon. Gentleman said. The right hon. Gentleman does not believe that on the average a rd. rate will be exceeded. But supposing that the Government are pressed by the hon. Gentleman, with all his ideas on this, that or the other; supposing that they are pressed by public opinion, that the matter is made an issue at Parliamentary and municipal elections, possibly stimulated by outside interests that are selling these things and making rings about them; supposing that there is an artificial panic, stirred up, it may be, by the Secretary of State insisting upon extravagant expenditure, I want to know what remedy the local authorities have against the right hon. Gentleman if he should become extravagant. They have no remedy at all, because he, quite rightly, is top dog altogether. What I am apprehensive about is that, when the local authorities reach their 1d. rate expenditure, they will tend, not from any unfriendliness, to be very cautious about accepting the right hon. Gentleman's recommendations for

further expenditure. When the 2d. rate is reached, it is almost inevitable that they will be difficult, and they will refer to the right hon. Gentleman's speeches in this House in which he says he does not anticipate that id. rate will be exceeded.
Then there will be argument, friction and delay. I do not want argument, friction and delay about this matter. I hate any political argument about it at all. It ought to be a clean, straightforward administrative job. Even now I would beg the Treasury Bench to reconsider it, to give the local authorities this 2d. guarantee, which they do not anticipate will be reached or anything like it. If that is done, I will not only withdraw the Amendment on behalf of the local authorities, but will withdraw it on behalf of the official Opposition as well. Unless that is done, I cannot withdraw it, and I cannot go back, in justice to the interests of the local authorities themselves. I have not gone into the story of the two years that was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. I think he was very generous about it to his predecessor in office. Generosity is always a good thing to see, and I would not make any unpleasantness about it.
In addition to our Amendment to the financial resolution there is one in the name of the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris). Both Amendments mean the same thing, and neither is perfect. They do not mean what the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green wants, nor in words say what we want, but our Amendment was put down the only way in which we could get it clown within the Rules of Order, and without increasing the charge upon the Treasury, and therefore it had to be in this untidy form. The Amendments mean, however, that we want the position to be that, if and when the 2d. rate is reached, the State should meet the expenditure beyond that. I am sorry that, at the end of this not too unpleasant Debate, we have not been able to arrive at a point at which we could withdraw our Amendment. I should have much preferred to have done so. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues could not go just that little way further which would have enabled the thing to be settled. I am sure, however, that the right hon. Gentleman will understand my position, as I understand his, though I regret it.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: After the two very conciliatory speeches that we have had from the Home Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), it is somewhat unfortunate that the matter should be left as it is, and I hope that, as the time is short now, some further opportunity may be taken of trying to settle it later. I should like to draw the attention of the Home Secretary to another aspect of this matter which has not been mentioned, and which I think has a direct bearing upon the offer he has made to the Opposition that there should be a time limit of three years to the Bill. I would draw his attention to the fact that this is not the only Air-Raid Precautions Bill that will have to be passed by this House, but that other legislation, which apparently is not yet prepared, will have to be passed; so that the suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman made a few minutes ago would not really get the Government out of their difficulty, but would only accentuate it. The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his speech yesterday, made this statement:
The Bill deals with the greater part of this field, but it does not deal with the whole of the field. It does not deal, for instance, with the question of the public utility services. That is a question which is still under the very active consideration of the Government; it is by no means ignored and is regarded as a very important field, and I shall hope, at no very distant date, to be able to make a statement to the House as to how the Government intend to deal with it.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1937; col. 44, Vol. 329.]
If I understand it aright, this means that in the near future, as soon as the Government have made up their mind, we shall have further legislation to define the position of public utility companies like the docks, water authorities, and gas and electricity companies. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) is still lingering here, because I wanted to show him that, in his endeavour this afternoon to show that perhaps the Government have not been so dilatory, he was wrong. I am a member of the largest water authority in Great Britain, the Metropolitan Water Board. The Metropolitan Water Board have been very anxious that something should be done, realising that, as the right hon. Gentleman himself says, incendiary bombs might play a very important part

in any hostilities. Without a plentiful supply of water, it is not possible to put out a multitude of fires, and the Metropolitan Water Board, realising their responsibility for 8,000,000 citizens of London, with the supply of water to whom we are charged, have been concerned about this question, and have been in touch with the right hon. Gentleman's Department in order to obtain some guidance. But guidance appears to be difficult to get, and within the last three months the Metropolitan Water Board, tired of waiting for the Home Office to give them some definite guidance, have taken the lead themselves and appointed an air-raid precautions officer on a full-time basis. We feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not expect the Metropolitan Water Board, which has to make a charge on the citizens of London for water, to pay the whole cost of this, because they have a national task in doing what they can to preserve the water supply. Therefore, the Board were under the impression, when they appointed a full-time air-raid precautions officer, that whatever agreement was made with local authorities would also apply to public utility companies like water companies and bodies like the Metropolitan Water Board. But up to the present time the right hon. Gentleman has been unable to make any statement on this matter.
I should be the last to suggest that the Metropolitan Water Board would not endeavour to carry out its duties as loyally as it can, but there is a very strong feeling on this matter. It seems probable that the right hon. Gentleman or the Under-Secretary is in a position to make some kind of statement, but at the moment the water companies, water authorities, and, for all I know, the harbour boards and so on throughout the country, do not know whether they will receive a penny towards the expenditure upon which they are embarking, and I think it is time that the Government made some definite statement on this point. As a member of the Metropolitan Water Board, I ask the right hon. Gentleman or the Under-Secretary to say that the expenditure which is now being incurred by this great and important public authority will be met by a Government grant at least equal to that which is to be made to the local authorities. Otherwise, I can visualise a decision at a special meeting of the Board


within the next few weeks that we should stop all our precautions. That, in my opinion, would be regrettable. I think the Government should make up their minds what they are going to do. I had intended to deal with the general question, but, in view of the desire of other Members to speak, and in the hope that there may still be a further statement from the Home Secretary, I will merely repeat my request on behalf of the Metropolitan Water Board that the Home Secretary should at least make some statement amplifying the somewhat vague statement that he made in his Second Reading speech yesterday.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Maxwell: I am sure the whole House will have heard with great regret the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) that he is not able to accept the offer which has been made by my right hon. Friend. I cannot help feeling, after having heard the Debate, that one of its main features has been the extreme moderation and good humour on both sides of the House, and it seems a great pity that that moderation and good humour should not have borne fruit in a united front which we could have shown to the country, and to other countries also. In the meantime, I want to give whole-hearted support to the Bill, which at last puts the theory of air-raid precautions into practice. A good deal has been said on either side about the two or 2½ years which have been lost, when we might during that time have been getting on with air-raid precautions. On that question I would only say that it seems to be an indictment against either our enthusiasm or our methods that we have been so long in getting on with the job. I do not know whether it has been lack of enthusiasm on the part of those at the head of affairs at the Home Office—I am not referring to my right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary, but am wondering whether in earlier times they attached too little importance to this vital question of air-raid precautions—or whether it was the extreme difficulties of the situation that led them to allow it to slide somewhat into the background.
At any rate, I am sure the House will agree that no reflection falls on the Air-Raid Precautions Department. In fact, the opposite is my experience. I even re-

ceived a letter the other day from one of the local authorities in my constituency, asking me if I could not do anything to stop the spate of literature which kept arriving from that very prolific Air-Raid Precautions Department. I agree that the Government have been no example of speed to the local authorities. At the same time, I do not think it was quite fair for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), when he spoke yesterday, to make out that local authorities have no share at all in the blame for the delay. Surely, even though the financial provisions have not been actually settled, they could have got on with their plans and schemes for which the Government had asked them. [An HON. MEMBER:" They did !"] Certainly not in every case. I was going to say that the fact that a great many did, shows that it was perfectly possible for them to do so. The right hon. Gentleman would have been doing a much greater service to the country if he had advised them to get on with the schemes, which did not cost anything to prepare, and then to bargain afterwards. The right hon. Gentleman said he was out, quite naturally, to drive a good bargain for the local authorities. The Government were out, equally naturally, to drive a good bargain for the State. The difference is that, where the local authorities are concerned, there is no limit to the concessions that they might make, but there is a limit to the concessions that the Government should conscientiously make.
If the Government consider it contrary to the national interest, they cannot allow the local authorities to have no financial interest in the administration of the schemes which, in the nature of things, they must administer, then I think the local authorities and the right hon. Gentleman should have been reasonable, and should have made a big effort, in the national interest, to arrive at some accommodation. After all, my right hon. Friend, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) said, has been extraordinarily reasonable. We have heard how he has gone from 50 per cent. up to 9o per cent. I know the right hon. Gentleman does not admit that; he says it is not go per cent., because of the appliances that have to be paid for. But if the right hon. Gentleman and the local authorities were going to pay for them


would he not include the appliances in his cost? Now my right hon. Friend has offered this very reasonable extension of a time limit in a new Clause of the Bill. The local authorities have every right to be nervous about the expenditure which they have to incur. They have every right to want to see a limit placed on that expenditure; but, surely, now the Home Secretary is offering that limit, if he makes the time limit short enough, it is fairly obvious that no excessive expenditure can be incurred in that time. Again, he has given an assurance that if he has to reconsider the whole present conception of the size of air-raid precautions in the meantime—and it looks like increasing expenditure very considerably—he will then reopen the whole question of finance. It is most unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman could not have given way one inch and allowed us to go away united in this matter.
I see in the Bill that, in regard to county districts, the grant they will receive for expenses which they incur will not be based on their own financial position, but on the financial position of the county in which they exist. That, I feel, might very easily cause considerable hardship, and I do not know whether my right hon. Friend can give me any assurance in that matter. In a small district, where a id. rate raises only a couple of hundred pounds, it is fairly clear that they are not going to be able to produce any extensive fire precaution schemes on their own, and I think it is quite possible that you will get a poor district in a rich county finding that the scheme would operate very severely against them. In this Bill, also, we are going to have regulations laid on the Table of the House by the Secretary of State. I do not know what is going to be contained in those regulations, or whether they are going to contain details of the services which will be given by the State to local authorities, but it seems to me that there are going to be some very controversial matters arising out of that. For instance, some local authorities will be considered more vulnerable than others to air attack. Therefore, they will receive more fire appliances than others. I can imagine some interesting occasions in this House when one Member gets up and says, "In my locality we have three fire engines, and another has

four: why is it? "Who is going to decide those questions?
Another question which has been raised on a number of occasions is that of appointing air-raid precautions officers, and of how much is going to be paid, and all the rest of it. I suggest that it is most important that air-raid precautions officers should be appointed. I know a case of a very large local authority which has submitted a scheme, which has been approved, and at the head of the scheme is the chief constable of the district. The chief constable, I have no doubt, is a most capable and hard-working man, but in most districts the chief constable has an enormous number of duties to perform already. I do not believe that that scheme envisages the real importance and magnitude of the task which any officer in charge will have to undertake. I think the Government should see, in approving future schemes, that a whole-time air-raid precautions officer is in charge. With regard to the recruitment of personnel for these schemes, I think it would be the last thing which anybody wishes that air-raid wardens should be recruited for other services immediately a war broke out, and I think that, at any rate for the first period of a war, we should have an assurance that such officers will not be mobilised for other services, but will be left to carry out their duties as air-raid precautions officers.
The most important question of all, and one on which, if I may say so, the Government have not given us a very clear conception of their ideas, is that of shelters. This is of vital importance, because it affects the whole question of finance very considerably, as my hon. Friend here pointed out. I must say I was rather staggered by his figures. I worked out very quickly that, on these estimates, it would cost about £429,000,000 to produce the shelters which he required for workers in factories.

Mr. Simmonds: These shelters will be provided only in the most vulnerable zones. In others, the figures would be very much smaller.

Mr. Maxwell: I quite appreciate what my hon. Friend said, I agree that my figure was based on the whole working population. At any rate, it would mean very large figures. But if we are really going to provide shelters, is there any


point in spending a lot of money in making refuge-rooms in private houses? Are we going to build shelters against armour-piercing bombs, or are we not?
I would like to say one word on evacuation. I think that hon. Members have made a mistake in assuming that you have to evacuate the whole of the East End of London or that you have to evacuate nobody. I think only certain people will have to be evacuated. You cannot evacuate the whole of the people in the East End of London. Most of them will be there because they are doing important jobs, and they must remain. But others will have to be evacuated. [An HON. MEMBER: "In an air raid?"] Certainly not in an air raid. Arrangernents will have to be made for removing people before the air raids begin. The Government must have definite plans and possibly they have for finding billets or other accommodation for people in less dangerous quarters. People in hospitals will have to be moved to country districts, in order to make room for the casualty clearance stations which will exist under the scheme.
In conclusion, I notice that the hon. Member for Derby Mr. Noel-Baker) talked a certain amount last night about our responsibility for not abolishing the aeroplane as an engine of war. I do not want to enter into any controversy on that matter, but I would suggest that the only way really to abolish a weapon of war is to render that weapon ineffective. Although you may do a great deal by agreement in restricting weapons, yet when any country is really up against it, it is going to use any weapon it has to hand. It is not a pleasant thought, but I am sure that that is the only realist way of looking at the situation. I do not think that it is any good expecting enemies to stick to the rules of the game or to be perfect gentlemen in warfare. I am quite convinced that if another war should come, air-raid precautions would form a very important part in our Defence, and it is most unfortunate that in this Bill, which initiates these new forms of defence, we should not be able to form a united front both for the benefit of the country and for the nations of the world.

6.31 p.m.

Mr. Westwood: No one listened to the statement which was made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department

with more sincere and deep regard than I did, for I am very anxious, like the hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Maxwell) to get a united front in dealing with the very serious problem that we are discussing at the present time. This is mainly a question of the safety of the civilian population of our land and there should be, and ought to be, unity in dealing with it. It was with regret that I listened to the statement of the Secretary of State when he only promised to review the financial commitments of the local authorities at the end of three years. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is in his place, and he knows something about reviews under the block-grant system. I at least have had something to do in the negotiations in Scotland in dealing with the quinquennial review, and when we start the discussion it is a question of pull devil, pull baker for the purpose of trying to get the best for each of the respective authorities, instead of dealing with the immediate administrative problems that ought to exercise our minds. You get dissensions and divisions when the respective authorities try to get advantages at the expense of other authorities that are interested in the negotiations. It might be defensible for arguments of that kind to go on in connection with the ordinary block-grant system but it is altogether indefensible when we are dealing with problems of life and death such as ought to be dealt with when we are considering air-raid precautions.
The offer of the Secretary of State does not meet the legitimate demands of the local authorities either of England or of Scotland, and, as far as this Debate is concerned, I am speaking on behalf of the local authorities in Scotland. Much play has been made of the need for a check being placed upon the expenditure of the local authorities. The point was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), and it was specially emphasised in the statement made by the Secretary of State. I resent the suggestion behind these arguments. I represent local authorities. I have had something to do with the negotiations concerning air-raid precautions, and I have had to stand up to all kinds of criticism and misrepresentation inside two local authorities, because I was pleading for co-operation with the Government in dealing with air-raid precautions. I


took the risk, I believe, that it is the responsibility of the local authorities to co-operate with the Government in dealing with the problem. But it is rather unfair to suggest—because this is what it means—that the local authorities will not do everything possible to economise if they are given responsibility in this matter. It means a vote of no confidence in the local authorities when charges or suggestions of that kind are made in this House, and I can say on behalf of the local authorities in Scotland, that they are prepared to co-operate with the Government and to exercise every method of economy; in fact, we would be false to the true traditions of Scotland if we did not. We are prepared to exercise true economy provided we get efficiency in carrying out air-raid precautions. The Secretary of State, in opening this Debate yesterday, said:
We have to start a new chapter in which the Government and the local authorities and the citizens in his country will all co-operate to make a much more comprehensive plan of air-raid precautions than anything that we have contemplated during the last few years.' '—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1937; col. 43, Vol. 329.]
Already we have had special reference to the delays since the issue of the first circular to the local authorities. If this is the new chapter, it has taken about two-and-a-half years to write the preface, and it is not good enough when we are facing up to one of the most dangerous situations that we as a nation have ever had to face. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) when he said that the present Secretary of State was far too generous towards his predecessor in allowing him to get out of the responsibility with regard to this particular problem. Dangers were just as great two-and-a-half years ago. The problems that we had to face were known, and there can he no justification for the two-and-a-half years, delay when the nation has to face up to the dangers that are ahead of us.
The Secretary of State made special reference to the fact that storage and housing of equipment would have to be provided, and that there would have to be instruction and advice to the public. In proof of the fact that local authorities are anxious to co-operate, there are authorities in Scotland who, before financial provision was made, had agreed

to a joint contribution and to bear the joint expense necessary, so that instruction and advice could be given to the public on this problem. We have been told that the provision of public shelters will be necessary, and that there must be arrangements for dealing with casualties and the detection of poison gas. All these things require expenditure, and the local authorities, while believing that, in a case of this kind, the whole cost ought to be borne by the State, have been willing to come to some arrangement with the Government to bear a share of the cost.
I have had a fairly long experience in local government, arid during the whole of the time I have bitterly opposed any argument put forward that the State, in connection with local administration work, should bear 100 per cent. of the cost. It is always easy to agree to a resolution that calls for a 100 per cent. of the cost of education or health services. I have always opposed it, because I believe that we ought to have a share in the responsibility, and if we have a share in the responsibility of administration we ought to bear a share of the financial responsibility. But this is an entirely different problem. If in dealing with it any local authority defaults it may mean disaster to the nation. It is a national problem, and the whole cost ought to be borne by the State; no financial responsibility should be borne by the local authority.
Another statement made by the Secretary of State in his opening statement was that
so far as the householder is concerned, very careful instruction will be given to him as to how to act in the event of a gas raid how to make one of the rooms in his house gas proof. "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th November, 1937; cols. 46 and 47, Vol. 329.]
Apparently others have been thinking of that particular problem before that statement was made, because the local authority of which I am a member, last night, without any knowledge whatever of what was being said in this House, were discussing arrangements with regard to municipal housing to make, if possible, at least one room gas-proof in every municipal house. That was on my initiative as convenor in regard to housing. We are very anxious to do everything possible to help the maximum number of people as far as air-raid precautions are


concerned, but that means expenditure, and we are very anxious to know whether, in any calculations that are to be made under the Bill, increased expenditure upon housing for the purpose of carrying out an air-raid precaution of that kind will entitle the local authority to the special grants to be provided under the Bill, or will it become a charge against the housing pool?
That is a question to which am entitled to receive an answer, because if it is to be a charge against the housing pool, it will mean that increased rents will have to be paid by those who occupy these houses. If it is entirely for air-raid precaution purposes, it ought to rank for grant under the Bill we are now discussing. Local authorities do not desire to obstruct the Bill. All along they have been willing to help, and it is true to say that unanimously they recognise that they have duties to perform in co-operation with the Government. Against opposition and misrepresentation, as a member of two local authorities, I have always taken the line that, instead of minimising the worst effects of any possible air raid that may take place, it is the duty of the local authority to use all the knowledge of science and to co-operate without delay with the Government in dealing with this problem, and I am not prepared to accept, on behalf of the local authorities of Scotland, any responsibility for the two and a-half years' delay since the issue of the first memorandum to the local authorities.
I find that, according to the Financial Memorandum to the Bill, the Exchequer expenditure is estimated at about £3,500,000 spread over the next three or four years. I would like to know whether capital expenditure incurred by local authorities under the provisions of this Bill with the approval of the Secretary of State would have to be repaid within that same three or four years, because that would also mean a very serious problem when dealing with rating and rate charges. There is a fairly clear definition in the Bill as to State expenditure, but it would appear that there is nothing definite as to the maximum expenditure that may fail upon the local rates, hence our reason for pleading with the right hon. Gentleman, even at this late hour, and despite his statement, again to reconsider this matter so that we can get real unity. You cannot get success in

administration and the best results from local authorities if they feel that an injustice is being done to them. There is no maximum placed on the expenditure they may be called upon to bear, and they think that they are doing what is right by the ratepayers and the State if they agree in England to an expenditure of twopence per £, with its equivalent expenditure in Scotland. In a communication which has been sent by the Association of County Councils in Scotland to Members of this House they say:
While several modifications have been urged by the local authorities' representatives, one consideration above all others has dominated their appeal, and that is their apprehension at the absence of any final limitations of the amount of expenditure to be borne by local authorities.
It has been suggested that even with the limit of 2d. in England and 1 3/5 in Scotland, there would be no check on the expenditure of the local authorities. But every scheme has to be submitted for the approval of the respective Secretaries of State. There can be no expenditure without their approval. What happens in regard to housing? Every scheme has to be submitted for the consideration of the Department. Even if a dado is proposed to be placed in a bedroom you cannot go on with the building of the house until you agree to drop the dado out of the scheme. If you want to put up a cornice, the Department can say: "We will not approve the expenditure until you take away the cornice." If that can be done in regard to housing expenditure, surely the same can be done when you are dealing with expenditure on air-raids precautions. That is already done in every Department, and there can be no justification for the argument that there will be excessive expenditure unless you had a call upon local funds beyond the amount of 2d. in the £.The County Councils' Association of Scotland in their communication also say:
The evidence repeatedly expressed on behalf of the Government that the local burden will not on the average exceed a product of the four-fifths of a rd. rate gives no assurance to the local authorities. The field of expenditure is national, it is new, and the object at stake is vital. No one can foresee what may be involved when the protective schemes are in full operation, and the paramount necessity of preserving the life of the nation must inevitably override preconceived ideas as to the scale of expenditure.


They plead for
the limitation of the local burden"—
that is what we are asking for—
which the local authorities of the country feel to be essential to the avoidance of grievous local injustice.
They conclude with these words:
It is desired to state emphatically that the whole aim of the local authorities is to secure this financial safeguard. They have no intention of obstructing the passage of the Bill and fully realise their duty to assist His Majesty's Government in administering the provisions of the Bill when it becomes law.
That statement expresses the unanimous view of the local authorities of Scotland, who have worked for the limitation of the expenditure to be borne by the local authorities. It is not too late to get absolute unanimity as far as the Bill is concerned. On the admission of the Minister, very little divides us at the moment. He is willing to reconsider the whole matter at the end of a year. If it is wrong to deal with the expenditure of the two-pence to-day it will be wrong a year or three years hence. If it will be right to do that three years hence, why not do the just thing now and get harmonious and efficient working on the part of the local authorities by removing what they consider to be an injustice?
The whole question that we are discussing, and that we are compelled to discuss, in view of world conditions, is a horrible commentary on so-called civilisation and alleged Christian nations. It is a reflection upon the intelligence, wisdom, success and ability of the so-called statesmen of the nations that in the twentieth century nations should be armed and arming to the teeth, and that wealth should be poured out for destruction and defensive purposes which could well be used for construction and constructive effort to better the lives and the standards of living of the peoples of the world. We live in a world in which the mad dogs of war are only leashed, and have not yet been destroyed. We must, therefore, continue to work for their destruction, but while doing so, with the world as it is, all necessary precautions must be taken by those who are responsible for the lives of our people. Towards that end this, I admit, is a necessary Bill, the smooth, rapid and efficient working of which can be attained by removing any feelings of financial injustice from the minds of local authorities.

That can best be done by accepting the principle contained in the Amendment or, if that cannot be done, by limiting the financial commitments of the local authorities as requested by those authorities to a 2d. rate for England, and its equivalent as far as the Scottish authorities are concerned.

6.52 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I should like at the beginning of my speech to give the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Westwood) the assurance which he desires in regard to the question of loan charges for air-raid precautions. The conditions will be the same as for ordinary loan charges, and will be related to the life of the assets. They will not be dealt with in the short space of time which the hon. Member feared.

Mr. Westwood: What about the other point as to the charge in respect of housing being a charge against air-raid precautions expenditure?

Mr. Lloyd: With regard to the question of preparing gas-proof rooms in houses, with which I shall deal at a later stage, it is not possible to make a distinction between municipal houses and the houses of other citizens. The hon. Member made a grave charge in regard to the whole matter which we have been discussing when he suggested that there had been undue delay in pressing forward with our scheme. That is a charge which was made at the outset of the Debate by the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), and the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) lent the weight of his authority to some extent to that view, on false information. The charge that there has been undue delay and that very little has been done can best be answered by a brief statement of what has been done. Therefore, I propose to give a short account of the work done by the Air-Raid Precautions Department at the Home Office since it was set up in May, 1935. The object of the Department was to plan, prepare and coordinate air-raid precautions to make everyone, from the householder to the Government, aware of the problem of high explosive, gas and incendiary bombs discharged from aeroplanes on a modern scale, and to get them to take such


reasonable precautions as ought to be taken and to educate them in such further precautions as should be taken if war ever came.
This is an enormous and a new problem. It is new, technically, new administratively and, above all, it is new psychologically to our people. Therefore, I should like to state briefly what steps have been taken by the Department since it was set up 2½ years ago. It would be best to bring the matter at once to its most concrete point by dealing with the technical side first. This will give me the opportunity of replying to a considerable number of points raised by hon. Members in the debate. One of the great difficulties that had to be overcome at the beginning was the lack of accurate knowledge of the practical effects of modern air weapons, and the lack of reliable data on which to base advice to the local authorities and the public. It was necessary to institute a considerable series of practical experiments. I will deal first with the question of high explosives.
Intensive experiments have been carried out by the Government at the Shoeburyness Experimental Range, in order to get accurate data upon the penetrative effect of various types of high explosive bombs, and their blast and splinter effects. I will give an example of one interesting experiment to show the intensive nature of the work done. There was constructed at Shoeburyness a full-scale model of a London street, with every underground service in it, electric mains, water mains, gas, hydrants, sewers and so on. Then we carried out experiments with large 500 lb. semi-armour-piercing bombs for the purpose of being able to advise all the various authorities on exactly the type of damage with which they might be expected to deal in the event of air raids. I think I can say, broadly, that the result of these experiments confirm the advice that the Government have given with regard to shelters.
The right hon. Member for Epping, the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) and the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) raised the question whether it was really right to pay so much attention to the 500-lb. semi-armour-piercing bomb. They asked: "Why not also consider the question of

the general purpose bomb?" and further asked: "Are you not setting yourselves too high a standard?" We are advised by our expert advisers that it is essential for us to take into very careful consideration, even as far as the civilian population is concerned, the fact that we must reckon with a considerable use of the 500-lb. semi-armour-piercing bomb. It is impossible to provide protection against direct hits from these large bombs. Even a large general purpose bomb will not have the same penetrative effect as a semi-armour-piercing bomb, but the experience of Madrid goes to show that they are making increased use of the general purpose bomb, with the delayed action fuse, which greatly increases the penetrative effect of these bombs. Nevertheless, it remains true that we should advise in the construction of shelters that every step be taken that is possible to give protection even against direct hits, because it is undoubtedly the case that if the floors are constructed in a strong enough way, and if the supports shore up the refuge room so that it would not collapse if the rest of the building fell upon it, a considerable degree of protection could be afforded.
In view of the fact that we cannot guarantee protection against direct hits, the alternative policy of dispersal must be the main policy upon which we must rely, and the best practical form of dispersal is to advise the people to stay in their own homes. On the other hand, the question has been raised by many hon. Members in the Debate as to the position of those whose homes would not make suitable shelters. In regard to that matter and in regard also to those caught in the streets, it would be the duty of the local authority to provide shelters, and I am able to say that the Home Office would approve for the purposes of grant the expense in which a local authority would be involved in regard to the construction of public shelters in congested areas where the houses are not suited to be used as shelters.
That brings me to the point raised by the hon. Member for Duddeston with regard to the question of sandbags. Of course, it is true that local authorities will require to use many millions of sandbags in making their public shelters, and I am in a position to announce to-night a further important financial concession to the local authorities. I am glad that this


gives some satisfaction to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, because though it is not possible to make an accurate estimate in regard to these matters, it is clear that the expenditure will be likely to be something between £1,000,000 and £2,000,000. I am able to state that the Government will make available free of charge to local authorities sandbags to meet approved requirements for the purpose of public shelters.
Of course, the problem of congested areas cannot, as many hon. Members have pointed out, be completely dealt with by the construction of public shelters, and three hon. Members have raised the question of evacuation. Now the question of evacuation, obviously, is a very big problem, and in our view it is a problem in which the final decision can only be taken by the Government of the day. But, of course, the Government of the day must be in a position to take quick and decisive action, and therefore they must be in possession of plans, and these plans must be prepared beforehand. I am able to say that preliminary plans are already in existence in regard to London, and it would certainly, in our view, be the duty of the local authorities of big centres of population in the provinces to consider this matter in connection with their own schemes.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: May I ask a question in regard to this evacuation? Are the Government visualising the evacuation of millions of people in London before the outbreak of hostilities, as was suggested by Members of the Socialist party, or is this the evacuation of small areas where circumstances would render it necessary for people to be evacuated?

Mr. Lloyd: That problem is covered by the statement I have made. I am not able to go further to-day. I now come to the question of incendiary bombs. A very considerable amount of experimental work has been carried out in regard to the control of these bombs, and an experiment was made on a derelict house in which several of these bombs were ignited, and I am sure the House will be glad to know that these bombs were controlled, with the implement mentioned by my right hon. Friend yesterday, by a number of young ladies, who in every case succeeded in effectively controlling the bombs and preventing the outbreak of fire in the house.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Did they have protective clothing?

Mr. Lloyd: No, Sir. Now I come to the question of gas, in which the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) is particularly interested. There has been a great amount of research work in the production of a respirator capable of being produced by mass production methods, and I think it is true to say that we were the first country to solve that problem, and we are still the only country which is issuing a respirator free to everybody. I should like to inform the hon. Member for Derby, in reply to the fears he expressed, that we now know that these respirators can be worn by children down to the age of four, and a special device for babies has now passed its scientific stage and is in the stage of practical trial. Also in regard to aged and infirm people we have carried out special investigations with the co-operation of certain institutions, and these trials have gone to show that these respirators can be worn by aged and infirm people without any discomfort and with no ill effects, and that, as a matter of fact, in the case of asthma there appears to be a positively curative result.
Now I come to the question of gas-proof rooms. There has been a good deal of confusion with regard to gas-proof rooms. The recommendations of the Air-Raid Precautions Department are simple, and they are cheap [An HON. MEMBER: "Are they effective?"] I am coming in a moment to the question of whether they are effective. It is really much like the sort of operation on a room that is carried out by a housewife when there is a question of fumigation after an infectious illness. It is a question of pasting paper over the cracks in the windows and the cracks in other places, of putting old sacks or newspapers up the chimney, and perhaps over the apertures by which air enters under the doors. I must at once correct a mistake into which the hon. Member for Derby fell. He had the idea that it was necessary to set aside a special room as a gas-proof room which would not be available for the ordinary use of the household, and, therefore, he went on to say—quite plausibly if that premise were accepted—that there would be millions of homes in which it would not be possible to have a gas-proof room. But it was never contemplated, and it is


quite unnecessary, that the refuge room which is to be gas-proofed should be a separate room. It is a room in which people can live all the time. This is a process which could be completed, as far as the vast number of houses is concerned, in a minute or two. It is already perfectly possible—I take the extreme case in order to satisfy the hon. Gentleman—for a family living in one room to have that as their gas-proof room.
Of course, these recommendations were based on a number of experiments, but there has been, as the hon. Member below the Gangway mentioned just now, a number of criticisms of the efficiency of the gas-proofing recommendations of the Home Office. These criticisms came from a body called the Cambridge Scientists' Anti-War Group. They published their findings in a book, which criticised the Government recommendations as ineffective. First of all, I must make it quite clear to the House that this group of anti-war scientists is quite distinct from the large body of Cambridge scientists, indeed, as I have very good reason to know, their assumption of this confusing name, which was liable to invest their experiments with all the majesty of Cambridge culture and learning, was very gravely resented by the senior members of the Faculty. I think the House would want a scientific matter of this kind to be dealt with entirely on a technical basis and quite free from politics. Nevertheless, I must point out that the Cambridge Scientists' Anti-War Group have, to say the least, a political tinge. The anti-war movement is, of course, well known to hon. Members. It was condemned as a Communist-inspired movement by the National Executive of the Labour party, and I do not think it is really necessary to go further than that.

Mr. H. Morrison: I think you are technically wrong.

Mr. Lloyd: I have the leaflet issued by the Labour party in my hand, in which this is one of a number of organisations declared to be subversive and unworthy of recognition by members of the Labour movement. The House will not expect me to go into details with regard to the experiments, but I would like to make two points. First of all, they NA ere conducted, not with a poison gas such as is used in war, but with carbon-dioxide, a

perfectly harmless gas produced by every hon. Member every time he breathes. Secondly, these scientists did not measure the amount of gas which leaked into a room, but they measured the amount of gas which leaked out of a room, and then they tried to deduce by theoretical methods how much gas would have leaked into the room. I am advised by the Government's technical advisers that this procedure naturally led to important fallacies.

Mr. A. Jenkins: On the occasion when that report was published I endeavoured to get him to agree to refer the contentious points to some body of independent scientists for a report, in order to reassure the public in this country, but he refused to do it. I do not know whether or not it has been referred to independent scientists since then.

Mr. Lloyd: I am going to deal with that very point, because I want to emphasise that the Government do not merely depend on their own technical advisers in this matter, highly competent though those technical advisers are, because I think hon. Members with knowledge of this subject will agree that the Chemical Defence Research Department of the Committee of Imperial Defence at the end of the War was regarded as the most efficient department of that kind in the whole world; but, in addition to these experts, the Government have the advice of upwards of 100 distinguished outside scientists and technical chemists; in fact, I think it is true to say that the leading scientists of the country in this field are members of the Chemical Defence Committee. I notice that, in regard to Cambridge University, for example, the late Lord Rutherford was a member of the Committee until his death. I notice that Sir William Pope, the professor of chemistry, Professor Dean, the professor of pathology, Professor Barcroft, professor of physiology, are all members of the Committee. Sir Joseph Barcroft is the man 'who during the War, when it was decided to make certain whether prussic acid gas could be used as a war gas, took the view that it was not fatal to human beings, whereas other scientists took the view that it was because it was fatal to animals; he was the man who walked into the gas chamber containing prussic acid gas with a dog and came out carrying the dog under his arm: the dog


was dead, and he was still alive. Those are some of the men from whose advice we have benefited.
A series of experiments has been carried out on Salisbury Plain, using actual war poison gas. Four types of poison gas were used—chlorine, mustard gas, tear gas and arsenical smokes. First of all, it should be said that some protection against gas is afforded by merely going indoors and closing all doors and windows. It is a matter of common knowledge that many peasants living behind the lines in the last War escaped the effect of gas merely by going indoors and closing doors and windows. We conducted experiments which definitely confirmed that fact. After this a room in a house was gas-proofed, according to Home Office recommendations, by unskilled men; then two tons of chlorine were released 20 yards from the house for an hour. Animals in the gas-proofed room were unaffected and remained normal, in spite of the severity of the trial. In another experiment a house was surrounded at a distance of 20 yards by large shallow trays of mustard gas a few yards apart, also a fine spray of mustard gas was produced 10 yards to windward of the house for an hour. Animals placed in the room were removed at the end of 20 hours, and a most thorough examination revealed no trace of the effects of the gas. Chemical instruments were also in the room, and showed that a man could have remained there the whole time without a respirator. Similar satisfactory experiments were carried out with the other poison gases. The special Committee of the Chemical Defence Committee, summing up the results of the experiments, say:
The experiments were purposely designed to represent the most severe conditions likely to be met. The results all combined to show that if the instructions given in Air-Raid Precautions Handbook No. I are carried out a very high standard of protection is obtained.
I will not trouble the House with details of further experiments with regard to strategic smoke-screens, camouflage and other experiments, which have been carried out.

Dr. Haden Guest: Have similar experiments been carried out with civilian respirators?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, and this kind of respirator has stood up to the most severe

trial. In addition to these experiments it was essential to get local authorities to move on their own. There were two lines on which this could be done—one, to ask them to prepare schemes of organisation and the other to start the training of local authority personnel in anti-gas and general air-raid precaution duties. The first step was the issue of the circular in July, 1935. There has been so much misunderstanding with regard to this circular that I must deal with it in some detail. I must deal with what the right hon. Member for South Hackney said in reply to the right hon. Member for Epping at the beginning of yesterday's Debate, which has been responsible for a great deal of misunderstanding. I am not for a moment suggesting that the right hon. Member for South Hackney was in any way being purposely disingenuous, but he said that from his records there had been no communication from the Home Office to local authorities between the issue of the circular in 1935 and February, 1937. The question of the right hon. Member for Epping was general, and did not relate to finance, and the point which greatly influenced the right hon. Member and the House was the impression that there had been no communication at all, that nothing had been done.

Mr. H. Morrison: The whole point of my argument was that the local authorities' machine could not function until there was substantial financial agreement between local authorities and the Government, that the Government had been so informed unanimously by the local authorities, and that notwithstanding that, there were these two years of delay before we were brought into joint conference with a view of arriving at a financial agreement.

Mr. Lloyd: I appreciate, and of course, accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, but the fact remains that as far as many hon. Members are concerned they did not understand the point in that way, and it is eminently desirable that I should clear up the matter at once. Let me point out that during that time the Home Office issued no less than six circulars to local authorities on various important subjects associated with air-raid precautions. They issued 50 per cent. of their total issue of circulars during that period; three memoranda and six handbooks for the use of local authorities.
It is important that this should be properly understood by hon. Members. In regard to this circular, it suggested that local authorities should prepare general plans, that afterwards when the handbooks were issued they should fill in the details of those plans, and that in the meantime there should be conferences between officers of the Department and the localities. These conferences took place, and lasted throughout the rest of that year. At the beginning of the next year local authorities were beginning to formulate their plans, the handbooks were issued and the work was generally proceeding.
At that time the matter could be described as being in the educational stage. Some local authorities were working quickly, some more slowly and there were a certain number of non-co-operating local authorities that refused; and they refused not on financial grounds. It must be remembered that public opinion on this matter was then rather different from what it is to-day. But by the time autumn came we were in a position to go on to the next stage. By that time a number of schemes had been brought forward by local authorities, and they were useful in that they earmarked certain buildings for certain purposes and certain personnel for certain purposes. They were not costed schemes, and the next stage was to get them accurately costed. When the Home Office had a sufficient number of typical schemes from various local authorities asking them to be costed, it involved visits of inspectors of the Department to check the details on the spot. The House will appreciate that local authorities and the Home Office were dealing with an entirely new problem, technically and administratively. Local authorities often made mistakes which had to be corrected by the Department, and it may be said that, by the beginning of this year the Government, for the first time, was in possession of essential knowledge with regard to the cost of air-raid precautions in typical local authority districts, which it was absolutely vital to get for a general survey of the whole problem. No one will suggest that the national administration should take binding decisions on finance in a new problem of this kind involving millions of pounds until they had all the data before them, and had carried

out a thorough survey of the expenditure in all its bearings.
In addition to that, work was pressed on in the training of personnel. The Home Office established an anti-gas school. The scheme was that local authorities should send men to be trained as instructors who could then go back to the localities and train their colleagues. As a result 100,000 men in the employ of local authorities have been trained in anti-gas and general air-raid precautions duties up to the present, and the whole of the police, 60,000 men, have also been trained. That gives 160,000 trained men as a result of the Home Office scheme. The Home Office have also trained on their own account 10,000 doctors, and under a scheme with the St. John's Ambulance and Red Cross Society, about 60,000 people have been also trained in first-aid duties. They have also made contact with business organisations, a handbook has been prepared, 500 factories have been visited, and contact has been established with chambers of commerce and employers' organisations who have been extremely helpful in this matter.
Now I come to the civilian respirators. A factory was established which was estimated to produce at the rate of 500,000 a week. The actual output has now risen to 650,000 a week, and we have now practically 20,000,000 respirators, 9,000,000 of which are in London. We have also gone forward with a scheme for the distribution of the respirators, which is equally important. We have carried out an investigation in a local authority with a population of 130,000, and a scheme has been worked out in conjunction with Home Office experts. It provides that the respirators shall be stored in four stores of 30,000 respirators each, and the actual scheme of distribution will be through a chain of 30 sub-depots, and then the distribution of a respirator to the householder in his home. This scheme contemplates that individuals in houses will be fitted with respirators in time of peace, and in time of emergency, the respirator should be distributed in a matter of hours.
Let me deal with the question of the financial negotiations. I should like to say, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, how much he appreciates the way in


which the right hon. Member for South Hackney conducted himself in his difficult dual position in the negotiations. There was never a hint in his representation of the local authorities of any suggestion of party activity of any kind. Still, the right hon. Member in opening his speech in part one said he was representing the views of local authorities as they were at the time the negotiations came to an end. I am not making any complaint against him. He was speaking the truth in every word he uttered, but there is one important fact to which I must draw the attention of the House, and that is, that while he was representing the views of local authorities as they were, he was not representing them as they are. The Association of Municipal Corporations, one of the most important of these bodies, in fact, the body which alone first approached the Secretary of State on the matter, issued a statement in which, while maintaining their general views, they nevertheless recognise that the Government have gone a long way to meet the views of local authorities, and in view of the urgency of the matter do not desire to hamper the passage of the Bill, but urge the Government to give an assurance on the following matters:

"1. If in practice it is found that the expenditure borne by local authorities will exceed the product of a 2d. rate the subject should be reconsidered;
2. That in any case there should be a review in three years time."
I submit that the statement made yesterday by my right hon. Friend really in substance meets the demand of this most powerful association. In one respect it is superior. It asks for reconsideration when the expenditure is over a 2d. rate.

My right hon. Friend has promised to bring under reconsideration any excess over a rd. rate, and in that respect he has met the local authorities very generously. The hon. Member for Mitcham (Sir R. Meller) indicated clearly that powerful influences in the County Councils' Association take up the same attitude as that of the Association of Municipal Corporations.

Mr. Logan: Is the Under-Secretary not aware that the City of Liverpool which is administered by the Tory party do not agree at all, and consider that it should be 100 per cent.?

Mr. Lloyd: I think when the City of Liverpool read the assurances which have been given by my right hon. Friend this afternoon their attitude may change.
In conclusion, I would like to say that I was impressed by what the right hon. Member for Epping said when he contrasted the way in which this matter has been handled in this country and the way in which it would be handled in a totalitarian State. It is true that there would be no negotiations with local authorities, and certainly there would be no non-cooperating authorities. I agree with the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) that this matter of air-raid precautions is a challenge for a free country, and we have to show that we can carry out this matter just as efficiently as, if not better than, any other country in the world.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 324; Noes, 135.

Division No. 14.]
AYES.
[17.30 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Bull, B. B.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Bullock, Capt. M.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Beechman, N. A.
Butcher, H. W.


Albery, Sir Irving
Beit, Sir A. L.
Campbell, Sir E. T.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Bennett, Sir E. N.
Cartland, J. R. H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Bernays, R. H.
Carver, Major W. H.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Birchall, Sir J. D.
Cary, R. A.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Bird, Sir R. B.
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)


Assheton, R.
Blair, Sir R.
Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Blaker, Sir R.
Cazalet, Theima (Islington, E.)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Boothby, R. J. G.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)


Atholl, Duchess of
Boulton, W. W.
Channon, H.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Boyce, H. Leslie
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Christie, J. A.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Brass, Sir W.
Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Clarry, Sir Reginald


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Colman, N. C. D.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.




Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Higgs, W. F.
Porritt, R. W.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Holdsworth, H.
Procter, Major H. A.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. I.
Holmes, J. S.
Purbrick, R.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Hopkinson, A.
Radford, E. A.


Crooke, J. S.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ramsbotham, H.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hulbert, N. J.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Cross, R. H.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Crossley, A. C.
Hunter, T.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Cruddas, Col. B.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Davidson, Viscountess
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Joel, D. J. B.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Davison, Sir W. H.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


De Chair, S. S.
Keeling, E. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


De la Bare, R.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Denville, Alfred
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Dodd, J. S.
Kimball, L.
Rowlands, G.


Donner, P. W.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H. Crewe, C.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Russell, R. J. (EddisburY)


Duggan, H. J.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Duncan, J. A. L.
Lees-Jones, J.
Salmon, Sir I.


Dunglass, Lord
Leigh, Sir J.
Salt. E. W.


Eastwood, J. F.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Levy, T.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Ellis, Sir G.
Lewis, O.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Emmolt, C. E. G. C.
Liddall, W. S.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lipson, O. L.
Sandys, E. D.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Savery, Sir Servington


Errington, E.
Lloyd, G. W.
Scott, Lord William


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Loftus, P. C.
Selley, H. R.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Lovat.Fraser, J. A.
Shakespeare, G. H


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Lyons, A. M.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Everard, W. L.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Fildes, Sir H.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Simmonds, O. E.


Findlay, Sir E.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. O.


Fleming, E. L.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Foot, D. M.
McEmit, Capt. J. H. F.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
McKie, J. H.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Matinamara, Capt. J. R. J
Somerset, T.


Ganzoni, Sir J.
Macquisten, F. A.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Magna y, T. Maitland, A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Spens, W. P.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Mande.r, G. le M.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Gledh.II, G.
Manningham Buller, Sir M.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Gluckstein, L. H, GoIdle, N. B.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark. N.)


Gower, Sir R. V.
Markham, S. F.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Marsden, Commander A.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Grant-Ferris, R.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Granville, E. L.
Mayhew, Lt.Col. J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Metier, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Tate, Mavis C.


Grettam. Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Mills, Sir F. (Layton, E.)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Gridley, Sir A. H.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Taylor, Viee-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Mitchell, H. (Brantford and Chiswick)
Thomas, J. P. L.


Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Titehfield, Marquess of


Grimston, R. V.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Touohe, G. C.


Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Train, Sir J.


Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Munro, P.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Tartan, R. H.


Hooking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Wakefield, W. W.


Hannah, I. C.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Harbord, A.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Ward, Lieut.-Gol. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Harris, Sir P. A.
Owen, Major G.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Harvey, Sir G.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Haslam, Henry (Hornoastle)
Patrick, C. M.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Peake, O.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Peat, C. U.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wells, S. R.


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Petherick, M.
White, H. Graham


Hepworth, J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Pilkington, R.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Williams, C. (Torquay)







Wilson, Lt.-Col, Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Womersley, Sir W. J.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Windsor-Clive, Lieut.Colonel G.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.



Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Wise, A. R.
Wragg, H.
Captain Hope and Captain


Withers, Sir J. J.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.
Dugdale.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Oliver, G. H.


Adamson, W. M.
Hardie, Agnes
Paling, W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)
Hayday, A.
Parker, J.


Ammon, C. G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Price, M. P.


Bonfield, J. W.
Henderson, T.(Tradeston)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Barnes, A. J.
Hicks, E. G.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Barr, J.
Hilts, A. (Pontefract)
Ridley, G.


Haley, J.
Hollins, A.
Riley, B.


Be!tenger, F. J.
Hopkin, D.
Ritson, J.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Jagger, J.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Beam.)


Benson, G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bevan, A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Heath)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sanders, W. S.


Bromfield, W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sexton. T. M.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Kelly, W. T.
Shinwell, E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Short, A.


Burke, W. A.
Kirby, B. V.
Silkin, L.


Cape, T.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Silverman, S. S.


Charleton, H. C.
Lathan, G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Chaser, O.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cluse, W. S.
Leach, W.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lee, F.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cove, W. G.
Leonard, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cripps, Hon. Sir StaffordDalton, H.
Leslie, J. R.
Stewart, W. J. (H ght'n-le-So'ng)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Logan, D. G. Lunn, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth. N.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Macdonald, G. (lnce)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpell)


Day, H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Thorne, W.


Robbie, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Thurtle, E.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McGovern, J.
Tinker, J. J. Viant, S. P.


Ede, J. C.
MacLaren, A.
Walkden, A. G.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Maclean, N.
Watkins, F. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Watson, W. McL.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Welsh, J. C.


Frankel, D.
Marklew, E.
Westwood, J.


Gallocher, W.
Marshall, F.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Gardner, B. W.
Mothers, G.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Garro Jones, G. M
Messer, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gibbins, J.
Milner, Major J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Montague, F.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Grenfell, D. R.
Muff. G.



Griffiths, J. (Lianally)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Anderson.


Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Captain Dugdale.]

Orders of the Day — AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to secure that precautions shall he taken with a view to the protection of persons and property from injury or damage in the event of hostile attack from the air, it is expedient to provide for the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be necessary to defray

(a) any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in the general superintendence and direction of measures taken under the

said Act, or in providing such services and training such persons and acquiring such equipment, appliances, and other material as he considers it necessary to furnish for the purpose of affording such protection as aforesaid; and
(b) the cost of grants to local authorities in respect of expenditure approved by the Secretary of State incurred ho them whether before or after the passing of the said Act, not exceeding in the case of any authority a percentage of the approved expenditure of the authority not less than sixty per cent. nor more than seventy-five per cent. determined by reference to scales graduated according to the proportion which the weighted population hears to the estimated population:
Provided that, if the approved expenditure of a local authority for any year exceeds the grant to the authority calculated as aforesaid by an amount in excess of the produce of a rate in England of one penny or in Scotland of four-fifths of a penny in the pound, the grant payable in respect of so much of the approved


expenditure as would cause the levying of a rate in excess of one penny or four-fifths of a penny in the pound, as the case may be, may be a percentage thereof determined by reference to the scales aforesaid but not in any case less than seventy-five per cent. nor more than eighty-five per cent.
For the purposes of this Resolution the expressions 'weighted population' and 'estimated population' mean respectively the weighted population and the estimated population of the county, county borough, City of London, metropolitan borough, or large burgh, as the case may be, or, in relation to the council of a county district or small burgh, of the county in which the district or small burgh is situated, as determined at the date of the commencement of the said Act for the purpose of the apportionment of the General Exchequer Contribution under the Local Government Act, 1929."—[King's Recommendation signified.]—[Sir S. Hoare.]

7.43 p.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: May I ask, Sir Dennis, whether you intend to call the Amendment on the Order Paper in my name—In line 25, at the end, to insert:
Provided also that no grant shall be made to a local authority under the foregoing paragraph (b) except upon the condition that the expenditure of the local authority, apart from the amount of such grant, does not exceed the produce of a rate in England of two pence or in Scotland of one and three-fifths of a penny in the pound"?

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman wishes to move the Amendment on the Order Paper in his name. I was in some little doubt as to whether in this case I ought to exercise the discretion of the Chair and not call the Amendment; but I have decided to do so on this occasion and to take the opportunity of saying now what my reasons would have been for non-selection if I had declined to select it. The Committee knows that there have been complaints from time to time about a Money Resolution being drawn so tightly that they would restrict the freedom of the Committee in Debate on the Bill, and therefore, I think one has to look at Amendments of this kind to see how far they have this effect. This is not so restrictive as some Amendments might be, but the Committee will realise that an Amendment of this kind could quite well be proposed on the Committee stage of the Bill without being brought up as an Amendment on a Money Resolution. I want the Committee to bear in mind that in the case of more restrictive Amendments than this to Money Resolutions, hon. Members may run the risk of such Amendments not being selected.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: On a point of Order. Is it not a fact that the whole complaint of the House of Commons has been about restrictive Resolutions moved by the Government and not restrictive Amendments moved by the Opposition? The restriction complained of by the Select Committee was a restriction imposed by the Government on the House of Commons, whereas this is a restriction which is sought to be imposed by the Opposition on the Government—a totally different thing.

The Chairman: Except possibly for the last sentence, I agree entirely with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It depends on the point of view from which you look at it. It might be that if an Amendment of this kind were carried, the minority of the Committee might consider that an undue restriction had been placed upon them by the majority.

7.47 P.m.

Mr. H. Morrison: I beg to move, in line 25, at the end, to insert:
Provided also that no grant shall be made to a local authority under the foregoing paragraph (b) except upon the condition that the expenditure of the local authority, apart from the amount of such grant, does not exceed the produce of a rate in England of two pence or in Scotland of one and three-fifths of a penny in the pound.
May I say that as we are usually in the minority we always feel that we are unduly restricted? This Financial Resolution is the first of the new Order to be moved, since the Select Committee reported, and since statements were made on the matter by the Prime Minister and by Mr. Speaker, and I am bound to say that it is just about as bad as I have ever seen. The outlook is not bright for the Opposition. We are making the most of it, and we are much obliged to you, Sir Dennis, for your consideration.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Lansbury: I understand that it was arranged that this discussion should close about half-past seven o'clock and I do not feel inclined to attempt to prolong it. But before the Resolution is passed, I would like to say something which I have been prevented from saying before—not through anybody's fault, of course, except my own. It is that I regard it as a most terrible and awful thing that Parliament should be called upon to pass this Money Resolution. I do not believe that the people outside have the least


conception of what the House has done just now, or of what this Committee is going to do in relation to this Money Resolution. I think the fact that we have reached a position in human affairs in which every so-called civilised Government in the world is taking the same steps that we are taking, really means international suicide, and I could not allow this Resolution to go without—[Interruption.] It may well be, that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have made up their minds feel that it is rather indecent for other people to express their views.

I am only saying that I think it is one of the most awful things that has happened in the history of any country in the world, that we should be engaged in the business in which we are engaged to-night. I shall take another opportunity to elaborate my protest but I want, to-night, to say that I think that for civilised nations all over the world to have come to this position, is sheer blasphemy both against God and against humanity.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 149; Noes, 305.

Division No. 15.]
AYES.
[7.50 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Groves, T. E.
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Oliver, G. H.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Owen, Major G.


Ammon, C. G.
Hardie, Agnes
Paling, W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Parker, J.


Bonfield, J. W.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Barnes, A. J.
Hayday, A.
Price, M. P.


Barr, J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Ouibell, D. J. K.


Batey, J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Ballenger, F. J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ridley, G.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hicks, E. C.
Riley, B.


Benson, G.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ritson, J.


Bevan, A.
Holdsworth, H.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Broad. F. A.
Hollins, A.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland. N.)


Bromfield, W.
Hopkin, D.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Brown. C. (Mansfield)
Jagger, J.
Rothschild, J. A. de


rown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)


Cape, T.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sanders, W. S.


Charletan, H. C.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sexton, T. M.


Choler, D.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Shinweil, E.


Close, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Short, A.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Silkin, L.


Cove, W. G.
Kirby, B. V.
Silverman, S. S.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Dalton, H.
Lathan, G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Leach, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Day, H.
Lee, F.
Sorensen, R. W.


Dobbie, W.
Leonard, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Leslie, J. R.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Ede, J. C.
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Lunn, W.
Thorne, W.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Thurtle, E.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
McEntee, V. La T.
Tinker, J. J.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
McGhee, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
McGovern, J.
Walkden, A. G.


Foot, D. M.
MacLaren, A.
Watkins, F. C.


Frankel, D.
Maclean, N.
Watson, W. McL.


Galtacher, W.
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Welsh, J. C.


Gardner, B. W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Westwood, J.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Mander, G. le M.
White, H. Graham


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Marklew, E.
Wilkinson, Ellen


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Marshall, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gibbing, J.
Mathers, G.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Messer, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Milner, Major J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Montague, F.



Grenfell, D. R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Adamson.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Muff, G.





NOES.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Assheton, R.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanel)


Albery, Sir Irving
Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Barrie, Sir C. C.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Atholl, Duchess of
Beamieh, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Beauchamp, Sir B. C.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)




Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Beechman, N. A.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otely)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Beit. Sir A. L.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Gledhill, G.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Bernays, R. H.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E)


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Goldie, N. B.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Bird, Sir R. B.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)


Blair, Sir R.
Graham Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Blaker, Sir R.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Granville, E. L.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.


Boulton, W. W.
Grattan-Doyle. Sir N.
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Greena, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Boyce, H. Leslie
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Munro, P.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Brass, Sir W.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Grimston, R. V.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
O'Nill,Rt.Hen. Sir Hugh


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Guest, Hon. I.(Brecon and Radnor)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Browns, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Guest, Mal. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Palmer, G. E. H.


Bull, B. B.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Patrick, C. M.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Peaks, O.


Butcher. H. W.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Peat, C. U.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hannah, I. C.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Petherick, M.


Carver, Major W. H.
Harbond, A.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Cary, R. A.
Harvey, Sir G.
Pilkington, R.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Cayzor, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Caralet, Thelma (Irlinton, E.)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Porritt, R. W.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Asshetor


Channon, H.
Hepburn P. G. T. Buchan-
Procter, Major H. A.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hepworth, J.
Purbrick, R.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Radford, E. A.


Christie, J. A.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Ramsbotham, H.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Higgs W. F.
Ramsdan, Sir E.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hoare Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Clydssdale, Marquess of
Holmes, J. S.
Rayner, Maior R. H.


Colman. N. C. D.
Hope Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Hopkinson, A.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Reid, J. S. C (Hillhead)


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hulbert, N. J.



Cooper. Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh. W.)
Hume, Sir G.H.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Craven-Ellis, W.
Hunter, T.
Ropner. Colonel L.


Croft, Brig.Gen. Sir H. Page
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Ross. Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Crooke, J. S.
James, Wing-Commander A W. H.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Crookshank. Capt. H. F. C.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Rowlands G.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Joel, D. J. B.
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Cross, R. H.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)



Crossley, A. C.
Keeling, E. H.



Crowder, J. F. E.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Kerr. J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Russell. Sir Alexander


Davidson, Viscountess
Kimball, L.
Russell. S. H. M. (Darwen)


Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Salmon, Sir I.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Salt, E. W.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Samuel, M. R. A.


De Chair, S. S.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


De la Bère. R.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lees-Jones, J.
Sandys, E. D.



Leigh, Sir J.
Savery, Sir Servington


Denville, Alfred
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Scott, Lord William


Dodd, J. S.
Levy, T.
Selley, H. R.


Donner, P. W.
Lewis, O.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Derman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Liddall, W. S.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Drewe, C.
Lipson, D. L.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewabury)
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Shute, Colonel Sir J. J.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Lloyd, G. W.
Simmonds, O. E.


Duggan, H. J.
Loftus, P. C.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Dunaan, J. A. L.
Lovat-Fraser. J. A.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Dunglass, Lord
Lyons, A. M.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Eastwood, J. F.
MacAndrew. Colonel Sir C. G.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Somerset, T.


Ellis, Sir G.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Somervell, Sir D. B (Crewe)


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McEwen. Capt. J. H. F.
Spans. W. P.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
McKie, J. H
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Errington, E.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Macquisten. F. A.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark. N.)


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Magnay, T;
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Everard. W. L.
Maitland, A.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Filder, Sir H.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Findlay, Sir E.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Sutcliffe, H.


Fleming. E. L.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Tatker, Sir R. I.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Markham, S. F.
Tats, Mavis C.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Marsden, Commander A.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)







Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Walisend)
Wise, A. R.


Thomas, J. P. L.
Waterhouse, Captain G.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Titchfield, Marquess of
Walt, Major G. S. Harvie
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Touche, G. C.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Train, Sir J.
Wells, S. R.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Tree, A. R. L. F.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
Wragg, H.


Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Torten, R. H.
Williams, C. (Torquay)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Wakefield, W. W.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord



Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Lieut.-Colonel Kerr and Captain


Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Winterten, Rt. Hon. Earl
Dugdale.


Main Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported upon Thursday.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE (JUVENILE CONTRIBUTORS AND YOUNG PERSONS) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Captain BOURNE in the Chair.]

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Contributions by juvenile contributors, their employers and the Treasury.)

The Deputy-Chairman: Mr. Leslie.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: On a point of Order. As a matter of procedure, Captain Bourne, may I ask how you propose to take these Amendments, some of which hang together?

The Deputy-Chairman: As far as I can ascertain, the Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Leslie) are really one scheme; that is to say, the object is to make the payment of contributions fall solely on the employers and not on the employés. Therefore, if the hon. Member moves his first Amendment, the others will fall. With regard to the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove)—in line 32, to leave out "two," and to insert "four "—that, I take it, is a separate point, and I think it is in order, though I would hesitate to give a Ruling on it at present.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Leslie: I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, to leave out "the contributors and contributions by."
If this Amendment were carried, the Clause would then read:
The contributions payable in respect of juvenile contributors shall comprise contributions by their employers…

This means that the contributions shall not be paid by these juvenile employés. There is no new principle involved in this, because, if I remember aright, the original Act of 1911 contained a provision to the effect that the whole of the contributions should be paid by the employers in the case of low wages. That, of course, was subsequently withdrawn, when wages were increased and the employers did not want to be exposed as paying low wages. I contend that these young people ought not to be asked to pay contributions from their very meagre wages, especially in view of the fact that they will get no monetary benefit out of the Act but only medical benefit. We may ask why these young people are employed at the early age of 14. The main reason undoubtedly is the poverty of their parents. Unfortunately, their education has to be sacrificed to add to the scanty incomes of poverty-stricken homes. These children are a sort of cheap labour, and that is the real reason why they are employed at this early age. Therefore, we contend that the employers ought to make the necessary provision for this juvenile labour when sickness overtakes these boys or girls. To take a single copper from the meagre earnings of these juveniles is something to which we certainly object, and I hope the Government will see the wisdom of our claim and agree to this Amendment.

8.6 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: I wish to support the Amendment, and in doing so to draw the attention of this Committee to a picture. I bought on Sunday a paper called the "News of the World," and on the front page of it was a picture of the Minister of Health and a boy, the latter having on a new suit of clothes. It said underneath the picture, "Insurance for all," and the Minister of Health was saying:
Ah, and I will put something in his pocket too.
Here is a grand opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to put something in the


lad's pocket. All that we are asking is that the 2d. per week that will have to be taken out of a boy's earnings should be kept in his possession so that he will have something more in his pocket at the week-end. It is a very modest appeal, and I am sure the Minister is trying to do something to improve the conditions of these young people, so why should he not go a little further and make things better for them? The small contribution that he is asking could easily be borne by the employers, and I think it would be worth the right hon. Gentleman's while to make a good job of it while he is at it.

8.8 p.m.

Sir Francis Acland: I am sorry that I cannot support the Amendment. I know that in many of these juvenile employments wages are lower than they ought to be. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear !"] Of course they are, but I think the cure is to get them higher, not to make this a matter of charity. I think the sooner we get young people, even from the age when they will be entitled to leave school following the age of 14, to recognise that they have some duties as well as some rights as citizens, the better it will be for the whole country. I hate the idea that because wages are not high enough, as they are not, we have got to favour these young people with an extra 2d. by relieving them of this contribution. It is worth 2d.—nobody suggests that it is not—and unless we make the whole of the insurance scheme a purely charity scheme, it seems to me that people ought to begin to enter into it en a reasonable basis and make their contributions as soon as they can. I hate to do anything under this Bill which will make the attempts which I, along with others, will always, I hope, try to make to raise wages, ineffective by enabling anyone to say, "At any rate, they do not have to pay their health contributions." They ought to pay their health contributions, and they ought to get decent wages out of which to pay them. I cannot support the Amendment.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I am amazed at the argument that we have just had from the Liberal benches.

Sir F. Acland: You want charity—everything for everybody.

Mr. Griffiths: It is amazing to speak about wanting charity for boys of 14 who are employed in industry. The charitable thing would be to take them out of industry altogether.

Sir F. Acland: Hear, hear, but you cannot do it in this Bill.

Mr. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman himself belonged to a Government which had ample opportunities of doing that, but which did not do it.

Sir F. Acland: When?

Mr. Griffiths: We welcome the Bill that has been brought forward, small and meagre as it is, to bring these boys within the scope of the National Health Insurance Act, but boy labour is cheap labour in every industry. There are at this time about 38,000 or 39,000 boys employed in the pits under 16 years of age, and I think that an employer who employs boy labour ought to pay an extra price for it. Therefore, in asking the employer to pay the whole of this contribution, we are not asking for charity, but merely asking the employer to have some extra responsibility towards these boys. The right hon. Gentleman talks about teaching these boys responsibility, but the fact that they work at the age of 14 is in itself responsibility enough, and they do not need to pay 2d. to make them feel that responsibility.

Sir F. Acland: What about citizenship?

Mr. Griffiths: Citizenship? A boy of 14 ought not to be assuming the responsibilities of citizenship, but ought to be playing about and in school. None of us who are here would think of sending our boys into industry at the age of 14, and we have no right to speak about other boys, who are compelled by poverty to go into industry, paying these contributions. Take the mining industry. Boys in large numbers are employed by colliers. I myself began my working life as a boy of 13 with a collier. Who pays these contributions? It is the colliers. Deductions are made from the total wages earned for the men and for the boys. I worked as a boy with an old collier named Tom Jones. He has gone now—he paid the price in the pit—but I shall always remember him kindly, because he paid me my wage in full, and I never suffered a single deduction. The chance is that the


collier will pay this 2d., and I say that the employer, not the collier, ought to pay it. Make these employers who employ boy labour pay these contributions. These boys go in at 14, but they go out at 16, and that is how they are taught the responsibilities of citizenship. I think we ought to place a premium upon boy labour and make it as difficult as we can by making the employers pay for it. I therefore support warm-heartedly this Amendment compelling employers who employ these young people in industry to pay their contributions. They have a special responsibility, and they should be asked to pay the total contributions provided for in this Bill.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Sexton: I am delighted to support the Amendment. I have spent a good deal of my life among boys and girls. The chief objection we have to boy and girl labour is that it is cheap labour. An hon. Member belowe the Gangway said that boy labour is cheap. Girl labour, however, is cheaper. We want to save these boys and girls who are ruthlessly torn from school to serve the purposes of financiers who want cheap labour. The rightful place for them is at school. It is no charity to enable them to keep the 2d. which the Government are demanding. If the Government had been worthy of the name they would have spent more than they propose to spend under the Bill, which works out at ½d. per boy and girl per week. With the 2d. that the employers have to contribute you get the wonderful sum of 2½d. It is a "tuppeny-ha'penny" Bill introduced by a "tuppeny-ha'penny" Government.
When we examine the Bill and the question of contributions we find a big anomaly. In the principal Act of 1936, the second Schedule states that in the case of low wage-earners not exceeding 3s. per working day, the employers must pay the whole of the contribution. It is, therefore, possible for boys or girls of 17 or 18 earning 15s. a week to have their contributions paid by the employer. Under this Bill we shall have boys and girls of 14 to 16 earning 5s. a week who will be mulcted of 2d. The percentage of the 2d. to 5s. is much greater for them than the percentage of the contributions to the wages of the men and women in the bigger scheme. It is no charity to allow these

boys and girls to be exempted from the 2d. It is only right and just that they should be exempted. It is no charity when we give pensions to ex-Prime Ministers. They are not even mulcted of 2d. a week for that. Therefore, there should be no charge upon boys and girls who have been deprived of their further education. In fact, instead of depriving them of 2d. a week they ought to have a contribution from the Government to supplement their meagre wages.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. Kirby: I should like to say a few words on this point because I have my name to a further Amendment—in page 2, line 32, to leave out "two," and to insert "four"—and I am afraid that if the present Amendment is not carried I shall not have an opportunity of referring to it. The point I want to bring before the Minister is that of the boy who starts work at a low wage.

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not know whether the hon. Member for Everton (Mr. Kirby) wishes to reserve the question of increased contribution until his Amendment is reached, because it seems to me a little difficult to associate the two Amendments. I think perhaps the hon. Member had better leave his point until later.

Mr. Kirby: If you are going to keep the Amendments separate, it may be difficult for me to express myself in the right way. I see in this Amendment a suggestion which affects the contribution of the boy or girl, and for that reason I feel that what I have to say will be in order.

The Deputy-Chairman: Perhaps I may help the hon. Member. As the Amendment stands the effect of it will be to reduce the contribution on behalf of the boy or girl who comes under the Bill to the 2d. from the employer, and there will be no question of an increased contribution. If the hon. Member's Amendment is moved the effect will be that the boy and girl will pay 2d. and the employer 4d. If, however, he likes to argue on this Amendment that a further contribution be placed on the employers, I think that this will be the most suitable occasion.

Mr. Kirby: I am much obliged to you, Captain Bourne. That is the point I wish to take up. I support this Amendment because for 15 years before coming to


the House I was an official of an organisation which had in its membership a large number of juvenile employés. I found that a high percentage of them commenced work at a weekly wage of about 10s. a week. In the conditions that exist in Liverpool that 10s., although paid by the employer, never reaches the home of the boy. In most cases the boy is supposed to contribute 6d. to some welfare fund in the works where he is employed. Then there is a bill for tramway fares amounting to 2s. a week and a further 2s. 6d. per week for his dinners. That means a net amount of only 5s. to take home. In cases where there is unemployment in the family and relief from the public assistance committee was being drawn, the family might lose from 2s. to 4s. a week in relief owing to the boy taking home the net sum of 5s.
I recently came across a case of such a boy who started work eight weeks ago. It was necessary for the parents to use that 5s. for the first six weeks in order to buy an overcoat for the boy. Probably for the next six weeks they will have to save the 5s. in order to buy him a suit to make him fit for his new work. That means that although the family have lost 3s. a week of public assistance relief the boy is taking home nothing towards the support of himself and the rest of the family. In this Amendment we are not asking for charity in the sense that we are asking for any monetary contribution, but we are asking for charity in the sense that we want a change of mind and a new outlook on the benches opposite in regard to those matters which affect so vitally the small incomes of the poorest of the poor.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. McEntee: I feel that when I address a plea to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health I shall get a courteous and civil reply but that I shall get nothing else. I like to hope, however, that on this occasion, because of the smallness of the request we are making, and because of the persons for whom the plea is made, namely, the children in industry, he will be more favourably disposed to our request than he usually is. I dare say that a good deal of consideration has been given by his Department and by himself to the matter we are discussing, but I would put it to the Minister that he does not understand industry as we do. He does not understand the homes of the

working people as we do. He does riot understand that, although the sum involved is very small, when a boy goes to work the small income earned is a big consideration to a family in which perhaps the father is getting public assistance after a-ving been out of work for a long time. Reference has been made to the conditions prevailing in Liverpool. When my hon. Friend was speaking I was thinking that in London the conditions were very much worse than they are there.
I live in and represent one of the dormitory towns outside London, Walthamstow. Most of the population there earn their living in London. The wages paid to juveniles of 14 or thereabouts are not very high, particularly in the case of girls, and in some cases the wages are very low. I know of instances where after the expenditure on their fares to London and the small sum they spend daily on a meagre meal there is nothing to take home at the end of the week. In circumstances like that it is not asking too much, it certainly is not a matter of charity, to ask the employers to pay the small contribution required to insure those juveniles. Frankly, I am surprised that in the general circumstances applying to young people in industry to-day they should be asked to pay these contributions. I agree with the right hon. Member for North Cornwall (Sir F. Acland) that wages to-day are too low, and there can be no charity in asking employers who pay those low wages to pay the insurance. The only people who can compel them to do it are those who are responsible for this Bill, the Government, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will concede this small point, and so enable the 2d. to go into homes where it is very often badly needed.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to weigh in along with the others in this matter, and should like to remind the Minister that for a day and a half we have been discussing the protection of the people of this country as a whole, and in the course of that discussion using the most high-flown sentiments. But how much are we doing for the protection of boys and girls who have to go to work at 14 years of age? If the Government show as much care for the people in connection with air-raid precautions as they are showing for these children, then the air-raid precau-


tions will not go very far—and I do not expect them to go any further than the Government are going in the present case. I am convinced that the Government are not concerned about protecting the health of these boys and girls. If they were the Government would not ow them to go into factories at 14. The right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), at the conclusion of his speech this afternoon, was making some play with what had been said by the spokesman for the Opposition, and said no language was sufficiently expressive to reply to it. I am prepared to say that no language is sufficient to express the meanness exhibited here in the treatment of these boys and girls. I am convinced that the spirit which animates this proposal for the insurance of boys and girls is the same as that which animates the Government in the defence of the people from air raids, and that means that there will be no defence. The Minister will agree with us in our sentiments, but when it comes to a question of hard cash he draws the line.
It has been mentioned that boys and girls travel long distances to work and in that way are put to expense. Hours of labour are different nowadays, but for many years I got up at half-past four in the morning in order to reach work at six o'clock. As to my wages, by the time I had paid tram and ferry fares and met all the odds and ends of liability which arise when one is away from home all day, I had practically no wages left to take home. A friend in my constituency has a child out at work, and by the time car fares have been paid and other odds and ends of expense met she comes home with no wages; but in the conditions prevailing there it is felt to be just as well that she should remain in that job, because it will probably give her a chance to get into some other job. What a condition of affairs ! If the Minister cares to consult the leaders of the Young Communist League, who are experts in this matter, they will give him thousands of cases of blind-alley jobs filled by boys and girls. They can get jobs at 14, and can keep those jobs till they are 16 or 17, and then other young people of 14 are brought in—

The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot see that what the hon. Member is saying is

relevant to the question whether the children or the employers should pay the insurance.

Mr. Gallacher: I was going to show that employers who make a practice of employing cheap labour in the form of boys and girls ought to pay. In a supplementary question to-day one of the hon. Members on these benches drew attention to the fact that profits own no nationality, and if these boys and girls are used as cheap labour in order to make profits the least we can do is to ask the employers to pay the necessary insurance to guarantee them against the consequences should they fall ill or be thrown out of employment. The employer is not employing them out of charity, or because he is a philanthropist, but in order to make profits, and the Minister of Health, especially, ought to see to it that everything is done to guard their health and well-being. Is it possible to ask the Minister of Health to make himself responsible, so far as he can within the scope of this Bill, for guarding the health and well-being of these boys and girls without cost to them? We hope that in this small matter he will be prepared to put the consideration of the boys and girls before that of the employers.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Logan: I had not intended to speak on this matter, and did not know that any Amendments were to be put down. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that under the principal Act all low-wage earners over 18 years of age and earning less than a stated sum are exempt, and the employers must pay the total amount of 9d. per week. I want to point out one or two exceptions which take place, and in which preferential treatment has been given to industrialists to obtain cheap boy labour. I remember well starting out at 4s. a week and continuing until I was 21 at 10s. a week as an indentured apprentice. The same applies to a boy leaving school to-day at 14, when he goes into the labour market. The lad who stays at school will not get any benefit. I agree that a boy leaving school will get the benefit by being able to get an additional period added on, but employers will again get the benefit of that labour.
A few moments ago my hon. Friend the Member for Everton (Mr. Kirby) dilated upon the question of income. Anybody with any knowledge of child labour


will know that if a boy goes out at 14 years and three months of age, or 14 and four months, into employment, it must be because of necessity in the home. He is not able to go to a secondary school and continue his education until 16 years of age, because money is needed. As a member of the Liverpool municipal authority I would point out to the Minister that the full total of 10s. earned would be taken as income into the home, but there might be 3s. or 4s. travelling expenses and that meals have to be taken into consideration. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that in many instances this cheap boy labour would go home with only about is. 6d. or 2s. a week. That would be the most they could possibly take.
Child labour goes out at an early age to take the place of adult labour. These boys go out into casual employment only to become derelicts later on. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is anxious to guard against this kind of thing. The standard rate for boys of 16 years of age is naturally higher than for boys of 14, but if the employers get this cheap labour of from 14 to 16 years, these boys will be thrown on the scrap-heap by the pressure of competition and many of theta will be added to the numbers of the unemployed. I am told by responsible persons that we have in this country at least 250,000 boys and girls of 14 years of age. That is a tremendous number and if they could get this grant it would be very beneficial to them.
In regard to the solvency of the fund, I think it would not affect the societies from the actuarial point of view. You would have to consider only the contracts which you had entered into with the doctors and what agreements you had with the societies for administration. Those would be the two principal points in the financial work of the Bill, not taking into account the extra benefits during the two years or 18 months that these persons get the benefits. Those are the only two things to be borne in mind. In view of the better state of employment of this country and of the shortage of child labour to-day, and in view of the fact that we are allowing these young boys to go into the labour market and are giving the employers a commodity which they cannot possibly purchase unless it is released from school, it is surely not asking too much that the employers should bear the whole cost. It is a small amount and when the boy be-

comes a wage-earner and gets higher rates of wages at 16 years of age, the contribution could be raised pro rata. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that this is a right and proper Amendment and that the Minister might wisely grant the concession.

8.41 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): I appreciate the points of view which have been put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite. They have counselled me in this matter and invited me to look at the question with a new outlook. Perhaps they will allow me to say that I am looking at it with a new outlook and that that is why the Bill has been brought in. The opportunity of bringing in this Bill has, of course, rested with a number of Governments and a number of Ministers of Health, but I think I am entitled to claim, I hope wihout arousing controversy, that this Measure marks a considerable step forward, as hon. Gentlemen opposite have admitted, and that I am the first Minister of Health to bring this proposal before the House of Commons. Therefore, I do not think anyone is entitled to challenge my outlook upon this matter or my desire to assist these young people and to fill the gap which it is so necessary should be filled. I say in my own defence that hon. Gentlemen opposite have no cause to reproach me, having regard to the considerable measure of improvement that this Bill will make.
On an examination of the Amendment it must be clear that it would be impossible for the Committee to accept it. If you take the first two Amendments together, the effect would be to make the total contribution for the juveniles of this country, 2d. a week, payable by the employers. If that were adopted, as hon. Gentlemen know who are concerned with the administration of approved societies, it would be impossible to pay the benefits which it is proposed under the Bill to give to juveniles. My first objection to the Amendment is, therefore, a purely technical one. I agree that it might be put right, on further reflection, by the two hon. Gentlemen who put it forward, but no one could possibly vote for it at present because it would not allow a suitable contribution to be given. The contribution would not be sufficient to meet the cost of medical benefit pro-


vided by the Bill and of its administration.

Mr. Leslie: Can the Minister accept the further Amendment which mentions four?

Sir K. Wood: I am afraid not. If the other Amendment were taken by itself—there is a series of Amendments which show a certain continuity in form—it would make the contribution 6d. per week, namely, 2d. by the employed contributor and 4d. by the employer, which is obviously not intended.

Mr. Kirby: The Minister is saying that our Amendment would mean an increase in the contribution. I know that he is kind and generous and that he would not like any misunderstanding to take place outside the House. We believe that we should do away with contributions, so far as these employed people are concerned, and that the whole onus should be placed upon the employer.

The Deputy-Chairman: If I may say a word on the point which has been made by the hon. Member for Everton (Mr. Kirby), I had very considerable difficulty this morning, in going through these Amendments, in trying to make up my mind whether the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) was really part of a composite Amendment. Both Amendments could stand on their own merits, but I thought it possible that they were intended to be one composite Amendment. I have had considerable doubt on the matter in my own mind, and I think the Minister is absolutely justified in having a doubt in his mind. I should only like to say that it would be a great help to the Chair and to Ministers and other hon. Members of the House, if, when Amendments are intended to form part of a composite scheme, they could be put down on the Order Paper in the names of the same hon. Members in the same order. That would enable a preliminary survey to be made as to whether the Amendments were intended to form part of one scheme or not. If that is not done, it may be that, with the best will in the world and with every desire on the part of the Chair to be helpful to hon. Members in all parts of the House, difficulties may arise.

Mr. Greenwood: Before the Minister resumes his speech, perhaps I may be

allowed to say that our desire was to abolish the contributions of the juveniles, and, in order to make that possible, to increase the contribution of the employer from 2d. to 4d.

The Deputy-Chairman: I fully appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman says; he was good enough to have a word with me, and I have allowed the discussion to continue on that basis; but if the Amendment at the top of page 414—in page 2, line 32, to leave out "two," and to insert "four"—had been put down in the names of the same hon. Members, I think the matter would have been clear both to myself and to the Minister. It will be of great assistance if that can be done in the future.

Sir K. Wood: I quite understand the position of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I have no doubt, Captain Bourne, that the observations you have been good enough to make will be taken to heart in all quarters of the Committee. The case, of course, for putting the whole contribution on the employer was made by the right hon. Gentleman on the Second Reading a few days ago. The scheme of National Health Insurance has contemplated from the very beginning a division of the contributions between employers and employed, with a definite proportion of the cost payable from the Exchequer, and, as was said by the right hon. Gentleman on the Second Reading, the only case in which the employer has to bear the whole contribution is where exceptionally low wages are paid to persons over the age of 18. It is worth noting, however, that no modification of the normal arrangement is made for young persons of from 16 to 18, even if they are paid low wages, and at no time has any Minister in any Government proposed any modification of that arrangement. Therefore, the suggestion does not really fit in with the proposals that are being made in this Bill. The division of the contribution between the employer, the worker and the State is normal in all schemes of sickness insurance, and I see that the National Convention on Sickness Insurance for Workers in Industry and Commerce and Domestic Servants, adopted at Geneva in 1927 and ratified by the Government of the United Kingdom, contains the following article—Article 7:


The insured persons and their employers shall share in providing the financial resources of the sickness insurance system.
Instances have been given of hard cases in which, for instance, a juvenile might be out of employment or ill; but the hon. Member who mentioned those cases forgot for the moment, of course, that arrangements are made under this Bill for contributions to cease in cases of that sort. In the circumstances I am afraid I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment and to adhere to the normal arrangement which has been made. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) invited me to consult the Young Communist League. I have consulted on this proposal the representatives of the approved societies. So far as I am aware, no suggestion of this kind has come from them, and, with all respect to the hon. Member's friends of the Young Communist League, I prefer to rest upon the advice I have received from leaders of all branches of approved societies in the country. It is in such circumstances that the Government have brought forward their proposals in this Bill.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Greenwood: I expected this reply from the right hon. Gentleman—

Sir K. Wood: You made it yourself.

Mr. Greenwood: The right hon. Gentleman has introduced a very small Bill; and, when he is asked to make a very small concession in a very small Bill, he refuses to do so. He regards this Bill as a considerable measure of improvement, but it is nothing of the kind. It brings into medical benefit for two years young persons who have hitherto been outside insurance. I am glad that they are brought in, but all that they get out of it is medical benefit, and, if we had an effective school-leaving age of 16, they would get that medical treatment in the school clinics. It is really doing very little, and I do not regard it as a considerable measure of improvement. Now the right hon. Gentleman says that, if they do not get this wretched 2d. a week, they cannot give the benefits. The benefits are negligible.
Hon. Members on this side of the Committee have pointed out that 2d. per week matters a great deal where the wage is small. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Corn-

wall (Sir F. Acland), having perhaps fluttered for the last time the flag of individualism, has fled. He was against our proposal; he talked about a peddling 2d. In the Debate on the King's Speech I referred to a speech made by a Minister of the Crown in which he said that there was only an increase in the cost of living of a penny in the shilling, a penny meaning nothing; but 2d. means an awful lot to the right hon. Gentleman. His scheme could not work without these two pennies. Have hon. Members opposite ever thought what a penny means to a hard-driven working family? I do not think that they realise the number of deductions of one kind and another that are made from wages, compulsorily or voluntarily, as in the case of hospitals. I do not think that they realise what is the obvious fact, that a child of 14 is not sent out to work because the parents want that child to be flung on the labour market. He or she goes out to work because those few shillings earned mean something important to the housewife, who is the chancellor of the exchequer in the home.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Cornwall (Sir. F. Arland) talked about a charity scheme, and said he did not want a charity scheme. This is not a charity scheme. Health insurance never has been a charity scheme. We are not asking for charity when we ask for the inclusion of these new entrants into health insurance for a contribution. The right hon. Gentleman has not replied to the case I made on Second Reading, or to the speeches that have been made on these benches to-night. This House has recognised that in the case of low-wage earners there is no surplus to make any contributions, but the right hon. Gentleman says that that is only for persons over 18, and then he says that we are guilty of a grave illogicality in doing nothing for people between the ages of 16 and 18. But that is not our fault. The sub-title of the Bill makes it clear that the purpose of the Bill is to make certain persons under 16 eligible for benefit.
This kind of finicking Debate is merely avoiding the main point at issue. The main point is not this quotation which is made from an International Convention, because that Convention has been flouted by this Government. The idea


that there should be joint contributions is abrogated by the law of this country in the case of people with low wages who are under 18 years of age. That, then, is the case for requiring, not for full benefit, but for very restricted benefit, contributions from immature workers, who are shamefully exploited, who, by the time they become eligible to enter unemployment insurance under the old Act, are ruthlessly dismissed because the employer does not want to pay the contributions. I say that there is no case for asking these young people who are shamefully exploited to pay a contribution for the most limited of benefits. They are exploited because they are used for blind-alley occupations, which end at the time of normal entry into health insurance. They are exploited because of the anxiety of parents to increase the family income. They are exploited because there are people a little better off who would be glad that their daughters should earn pin-money. It is not uncommon, as has been pointed out on these benches, because of the necessary cost of meals, transport and subscriptions that they have to pay from even these sweated wages, for their earnings to become almost negligible, yet, out of this very exiguous weekly payment that so many juvenile workers receive, the right hon.

Gentleman wants to levy a toll of 2d. a week.

This Bill can be described as mean. I think it is mean. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. In a curious kind of reasoning, which I cannot understand, he defends low-wage earners under 18 not paying a contribution, but then goes on to argue that there is an International Labour Convention which says that everybody ought to pay. I am bound to say that this is a very small and mean Measure. If the right hon. Gentleman would give us this cons cession he would make a gesture to show his sincerity and his desire to make health insurance a good scheme. The right hon. Gentleman, I am afraid, will not make any kind of compromise, and in those circumstances we have no alternative but to ask the House to declare whether it thinks it right that juvenile workers, who ought not to be in industry at all, should, as the price of their employment, because of family necessity, contribute to a service which they ought to enjoy as school children, 2d. a week as workers. I hope the Committee—I am always an optimist—will take our point of view.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 194: Noes, 121.

Division No. 16.]
AYES.
[9.4 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Fildes, Sir H.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Findlay, Sir E.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Fleming, E. L.


Albery, Sir Irving
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Foot, D. M.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (Enburgh, W.)
Ganzoni, Sir J.


Assheton, R.
Cox, H. B. T.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Atholl, Duchess of
Craven-Ellis, W.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Crooke, J. S.
Gledhill, G.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Gluckstein, L. H.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Cross, R. H.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Barrie, Sir B. C.
Crossley, A. C.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Cruddas, Col. B.
Grimston, R. V.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Beechman, N. A.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Hannah, I. C.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Bernays, R. H.
Denville, Alfred
Harbord, A.


Blair, Sir R.
Dodd, J. S.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Boulton, W. W.
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Drewe, C.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Brass, Sir W.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Duggan, H. J.
Hepworth, J.


Brown, Cal. D. C. (Hexham)
Duncan, J. A. L.
Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Eastwood, J. F.
Higgs, W. F.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Eckersley, P. T.
Holmes, J. S.


Bull, B. B.
Ellis, Sir G.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Butcher, H. W.
Emery, J. F.
Hopkinson, A.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Cary, R. A.
Errington, E.
Hurd, Sir P. A.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Jarvis, Sir J. J.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Everard, W. L.
Joel, D. J. B.




Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Owen, Major G.
Simmonds, O. E.


Keeling, E. H
Peat, C. U.
Somerset, T.


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Kimball, L.
Petherick, M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Pickthern, K. W. M.
Spans. W. P.


Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Lees-Jones, J.
Porritt, R. W.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Levy, T.
Radford, E. A.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Lewis, O.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Sutoliffe, H.


Liddall, W. S.
Ramsbotham, H.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Lipson, D. L.
Ramadan, Sir E.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Lletsellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Titcifield. Marquess of


Loftus, P. C.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Touche, G. C.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Turton, R. H.


Macquisten, F. A.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Magnay, T.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Rowlands, G.
White, H. Graham


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Markham, S. F.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Mellor, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Salt, E. W.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Samuel, M. R. A.
Wragg, H.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Sandi's, E. D.



Munro, P.
Selley, H. R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Major Herbert and Major Sir


Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
James Edmondson.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Groves, T. E.
Montague, F.


Adamson, W. M.
Guest, Dr, L. H. (Islington, N.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon, H. (Hackney, S.)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Ammon, C. G.
Hardie, Agnes
Muff, G.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Oliver, G. H.


Bonfield, J. W.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Paling, W.


Barnes, A. J.
Hayday, A.
Parker, J.


Barr, J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Batey, J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Price, M. P.


Bellenger, F. J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Bann, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hicks, E. G.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Benson, G.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ridley, G.


Bevan, A.
Hollins, A.
Riley, B.


Broad, F. A.
Hopkin, D.
Ritson, J.


Bromfield, W.
Jagger, J.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sexton, T. M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Shinwell, E


Burke, W. A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Short, A.


Chafer, D.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Silkin, L.


Cluse, W. S.
Kelly, W. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cove, W. G.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Dalton, H.
Lathan, G.
Stewart, W. J. (Hght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lawson, J. J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Bobbie, W.
Leach, W.
Thurile, E.


Dunn, E. (Rather Valley)
Lee, F.
Tinker, J. J.


Ede, J. C.
Leslie, J. R.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Logan, D. G.
Walkden, A. G.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lunn, W.
Watkins, F. C.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Macdonald. G. (Ince)
Watson, W. McL.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
McEntee, V. La T.
Welsh, J. C.


Frankel, D.
McGhee, H. G.
Westwood, J.


Gallacher, W.
McGovern, J.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Gardner, B. W.
MacLaren, A.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gibbins, J.
Maclean, N.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Marklew, E.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Grenfell, D. R.
Marshall, F.



Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Messer, F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Mothers and Mr. Charleton.


Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.—(Short title, citation and extent.)

9.13 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, in page 5, line 37, to leave out "first day of January," and to insert" fourth day of April."
This is an Amendment with reference to the date when this Measure shall come into operation. The Committee will remember that the date, "the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight," was inserted in the Bill when it was introduced in the House in June last, but we were unable to proceed with the Measure at that time, and, therefore, I consulted the representatives of the approved societies. A great deal of work will have to be done in anticipation of the coming into effect of this Measure. The stamps will have to be prepared and distributed to all the post offices, and cards supplied to approved societies upon which they will have to enter the names of juvenile members and certain other particulars before issuing them to the members. The Consultative Councils for England, Wales and Scotland are of opinion that for the convenience of the administration of the Measure and in order that it should be begun when all these necessary steps have been taken, it would be for the general convenience that, instead of on 1st January the Measure should be brought into force on 4th April next. It is for that purpose, which I think will be for the general convenience, that I have moved this Amendment.

Mr. Logan: How is the right hon. Gentleman going to arrange the termination of dates?

Sir K. Wood: I understand that the societies have considered that. This is the date chosen by them as most convenient. I am informed that the first period will be for only 13 weeks.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 5, leave out lines 39 and 40.—[Sir K. Wood.]

NEW CLAUSE.—(Applications for membership in approved societies by boys and girls who have not become juvenile contributors.)

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person who has not attained the age of

sixteen may apply to an approved society for membership, notwithstanding that he has not become a juvenile contributor.

(2) Where, either before or after the commencement of this Act, a person has, before becoming a juvenile contributor and at a time when he had not attained the age of sixteen, delivered within the appropriate period and in proper form an application for membership to an approved society, or to the duly appointed agent of such a society, being a person receiving applications for membership, then if, within a period of three months after the date on which the application was so delivered, the society

(a) has delivered or sent by post to the applicant a notification in writing that his application has been accepted; or
(b) has not delivered or sent by post to the applicant a notification in writing that his application has been rejected;
the applicant shall be deemed to be or to have been admitted a member of the society as on the date on which he becomes or became a juvenile contributor.

(3) Subject as hereinafter provided, any application to an approved society for membership, being an application made by a person before he becomes a juvenile contributor, shall, if it has been made before the beginning of the appropriate period, be of no effect:

Provided that where, within the appropriate period, a person who becomes a juvenile contributor before the second day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, has made applications in proper form to two or more societies for membership, then, if at any time between the twenty-first day of June, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, and the date of the passing of this Act, he has applied in writing for admission to one or more of those societies, subsection (2) of this section shall have effect in relation to him as if any reference in that subsection to "the society" were a reference to that one of the societies aforesaid to which he has so applied in writing before the date of the passing of this Act or, as the case may be, to that one of them to which, or to the agent of which, his written application for membership was first delivered as aforesaid before that date.

(4) In this section the expression "the appropriate period" means—

(a) in relation to an applicant who becomes a juvenile contributor before the second day of May, nineteen hundred and thirty-eight, the period beginning with the date of the passing of this Act and ending immediately before the date on which he becomes a juvenile contributor; or
(b) in relation to any other applicant, the period of three months immediately preceding the date on which he becomes a juvenile contributor.—[Sir K. Wood.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

9.16 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause has been necessitated by events which have taken place since the introduction of the Bill in June last. This will be a very popular Bill and will be greatly appreciated not only by the approved societies but by the juvenile contributors. Since I introduced the Measure, as anyone acquainted with the affairs of approved societies knows, there has been a vigorous campaign carried on by some of the approved societies to secure the juvenile contributors as members when the Act comes into operation. The officials of those approved societies will be amused at the doubts of hon. Members opposite as to whether or not the Act is likely to be successful. The societies which have taken very active steps to secure the juveniles as members of their societies have, in a very large number of cases, obtained applications from these young people to join their societies. On the other hand, a number of societies have taken the view that until the Bill became law it was not desirable, arid might be held not to be legal, to seek applications from these young people.
In consequence of the delay in bringing in the Bill and the postponement over the Parliamentary holidays, doubt has arisen as to the exact legal position as regards those who have applied for membership of certain approved societies, and unless some provision is made by Parliament there may be many disputes as to whether these young people have joined one society or another. In these circumstances we consulted the Consultative Councils for England, Wales and Scotland as to what they thought would be the most convenient course to adopt, and they were of opinion that some expressed provision should be made in the Bill to deal with the matter. The new Clause is designed to meet the general expression of opinion of the two Consultative Councils. It is a reasonable Clause, and I hope it will meet with the approval of the Committee.
The Clause provides that nothing purporting to be an application for membership by a juvenile after the date of the introduction of the Bill on 22nd June, 1937, and before the passing of the Act, shall have any validity—I think that is right—unless it is confirmed by an application in proper form after the passing of the Act. I do not think that Parliament

could approve that there should, be application for membership of an approved society in respect of a Measure which had not at the time received Parliamentary approval.

Mr. Logan: Does that mean that in regard to the forms that may have been sent out, new forms will be required, or would it be right if proof were given of the signature and they attested again? In that case, could not the date be altered, as long as it was verified that no change had taken place in the original application for membership?

Sir K. Wood: How exactly it can be done, whether by re-signing or not, I shall have to consult the Controller of Insurance, but it is perfectly clear that we must have confirmation of any application made before the passing of the Act.

Mr. Jenkins: Does that mean that the forms that have been sent out and signed by the applicants will be cancelled and a new application will have to be signed and submitted?

Sir K. Wood: No, I will make inquiries, but I think it will be sufficient if they are re-affirmed and re-signed, or something of that kind. The new Clause covers, in the first place, the special position arising out of the inception of the scheme in respect of these applications and, secondly, it provides for the permanent position with regard to the applications of juvenile contributors for membership of societies when the temporary position is out of the way. The Clause provides that with respect to boys and girls becoming juvenile contributors within the first month of the operation of the scheme, any application in proper form after the passing of the Act which is accepted by a society will establish membership from the date of the young person becoming employed. The only difficulty that will then arise is the case which the hon. Member opposite visualises, and that is where application is made to more than one society, which suggests how popular this Measure is. When a boy or girl applies to more than one society after the passing of the Act priority is to be given to a society, if any, to which he first applied after 22nd June, 1937. It goes by date. That is thought to be a fair compromise. The approved societies have gone to a great deal of trouble and expense in the matter, and


where application has been made to two societies and there is a dispute about it after the passing of the Act, then the dispute is to be settled by giving priority to the society to which application was first made. These difficulties arising from early application and the anxiety to join the scheme will disappear and matters will get on to a normal basis as the scheme progresses.
As regards the permanent position, the Clause provides that application by boys and girls for membership of approved societies as juvenile contributors may be made within three months before becoming insured, and not before. We must have some limitation as to the time when application can be made in respect to people who are likely to become insured, and we have fixed the period, I think with general concurrence, at three months. This proposal to deal with a temporary difficulty will, I believe, meet with general acceptance, and I think it can be said that the young people themselves—because the interest of the juvenile contributors is the first interest that we have to consider, apart from the convenience of the approved society—will be protected under this Clause against being bound against their will by any step which they may have taken without due consideration before the passing of the Measure. It is a temporary difficulty that has arisen owing to the competition of the approved societies to obtain members in connection with the scheme, and I hope that it will be generally acceptable to members of the Committee.

Mr. Logan: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down might I ask a question in regard to transfers which are affected by insured persons under the Act of 1924? Are they allowed under this scheme? There is nothing in the Act which says anything with regard to transferring. Might I also ask what is really meant by sub-section (1) which says:
Subject to the provisions of this Act"—
I take it that is the Act we are now considering, not the National Insurance Act—
a person who has not attained the age of sixteen may apply to an approved society for membership "—
and now these are the words that I am in doubt about—

notwithstanding that he has not become a juvenile contributor.
Well, he will apply only once. What is meant by those words?

Sir K. Wood: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is that transfers would be permitted as under the principal Act. With regard to the words, "notwithstanding that he has not become a juvenile contributor," they are inserted because in fact at that particular time he is not a juvenile contributor within the meaning of the National Insurance Act. In the case of this special class of people we are allowing them to apply at an early date before they have become employed and actually obtained the strict legal title of juvenile contributor.

9.31 p.m.

Mr. Greenwood: The right hon. Gentleman has explained this new Clause with his usual clarity—I do not put it any higher than that. As I understand, leaving aside all the right hon. Gentleman's verbiage, it really means that since the time when the right hon. Gentleman, with that optimism which is ever present with him, thought he was going to get the Bill on the Statute Book before the new Session, approved societies have been scouting for members, and he said, "This is very naughty; they should not do anything of the kind." That is the first part of the Clause, and then in the second part it says that of two societies, the one that applied earlier than it should have applied shall be the one that shall have the preference and shall have the juvenile member. The right hon. Gentleman's technique amazes me. I am bound to say that I study it with the deepest interest and with the greatest improvement to myself. He began by suggesting that this new Clause proved how enthusiastic was the support of the approved societies. Indeed, he emphasised this more than once during his speech and talked about the popularity of this Measure. I should like to know which were these approved societies which are marching behind the right hon. Gentleman's banner. It is not a question of enthusiasm for the right hon. Gentleman's Measure; it is because the large insurance societies, taking time by the forelock, have been round touting for these young people, not because they necessarily want them as members of their approved societies, but because once an agent has got his foot into the home there is further business.
The right hon. Gentleman, having been a little precipitate in introducing this Bill, having so to speak invited the large insurance companies to go round touting for custom, finds himself in some difficulty, and he comes to this House dressed in a white sheet, wearing the white flower of a blameless life, as a man who is performing a public duty. With his wide experience and his very long acquaintance with insurance he ought to have known that the insurance companies would immediately go treading on one another's heels, searching out all these wretched children in the hope of getting them into the societies, and saying to themselves, "When they grow up eight, nine or ten years from now, they will marry, and we can then insure the family as the family comes along." He ought to have realised that, and, as a matter of fact, he ought not to be congratulated on this new Clause; he ought to be condemned on it. And now as I understand—he did not put it as bluntly as I can put it—having realised that he had created an awful stir in the approved society movement, having got into this difficulty, the right hon. Gentleman to get himself out produces this new Clause, which is difficult to understand and not much easier even when the right hon. Gentleman has explained it with his usual clarity. He says, in the first place, that he is trying to rectify a wrong, but that where two wrongs have been done by a child applying to two societies he is condoning a sin, and says that the one which is to get the little wretch first shall be regarded as being legally entitled to it.
That is what I understand the Clause is about. I do not see how we can object to it. I am afraid we shall have to condone the right hon. Gentleman. My point in rising was to protest against the view that this miserable subterfuge in the shape of this new Clause should be regarded as supporting in an enthusiastic way the Bill from the point of view of the approved societies of the kind the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. I wish he had told us who they are. I suspect some of them. They are out for business, and the right hon. Gentleman, having committed this grave indiscretion in the middle of the year, wants to get out of it. I am sure the Committee will try to get him out of his difficulty but at the same time gravely admonish him and

hope that in the future he will not be so precipitate.

9.37

Mr. Mander: In spite of the clarity with which the right hon. Gentleman has explained the new Clause, there is one point upon which we must ask for further information. He said that where several applications were made the one that is first received shall be deemed to be the true one. Let me put this point to him; it will arise in a number of cases. Suppose two applications are received on the same day, or three or four, and they come by the same post. Which has priority there? Is it a matter of tossing up, or is it that which was first delivered and opened? Who is to decide? It is clear that there is a problem there which cannot be disposed of in the easy way of saying that the one which comes first shall be the true one.

Sir K. Wood: In circumstances of that kind a dispute would arise under the administration of the Act and would be for my decision. I might, of course, refer it for advice to the League of Nations.

Mr. Mander: I am delighted to see that at last the Government are taking some interest in the League of Nations.

9.39 P.m.

Mr. Duncan: There is one point I want to put. In Clause one it says that a person can join the scheme if he is employed within the meaning of the National Health Insurance Act, 1936; that means that he can become a juvenile contributor only when he becomes employed. Subsection (I) of this Clause says that a person who has not attained the age of 16 may apply to an approved society for membership notwithstanding the fact that he has not become a juvenile contributor. If he has got a job he can still become a member of an approved society as a voluntary contributor under the Act.

9.40 p.m.

Sir K. Wood: The Clause means that he can make his application before he becomes employed. Its object is to meet the case of boys and girls who are about to leave school and enter on a period of employment. It is not to meet the case of the ordinary insured person. These juveniles can make an advance application to a society.

Mr. Gallacher: If a juvenile makes an application to one approved society and a


further application to another approved society, it may be that the juvenile's parents might consider the second society to be the one. In that case why is there any need for a transfer? Is it not possible to find some other way of dealing with the matter? I think the Minister is making a mistake, and that he should have taken the advice that I gave him.

Sir K. Wood: I think the answer was overlooked by the right hon. Member opposite in the most interesting speech which the whole Committee was delighted to hear, that even if you have to refer back to the date when the first application was made in all cases a new application must be made after the passing of the Bill. That is essential, and it is only in the case where there have been two applications made after the passing of the Bill that the date of the provisional application arises. It is by no means one class of approved society that has endeavoured to obtain members under the Bill. One of the largest approved societies of the kind which, I think, the right hon. Gentleman had in mind has, in fact, taken the view that they should not attempt to obtain members until after the passing of the Bill, but I do not think I am to blame for approved societies taking this opportunity of obtaining membership.

Mr. Logan: Am I to understand that a stereotyped form will be issued? The old application form was stereotyped. Is there to be a new form?

Sir K. Wood: The application form will be the form as laid down in the rules of each society.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to he considered upon Thursday.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (AGRICULTURAL POPULATION) (SCOTLAND) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the giving of

financial assistance towards the expenses incurred by local authorities in providing housing accommodation for the agricultural population; to promote the provision of new housing accommodation to replace accommodation which is occupied by members of the agricultural population and is unfit for human habitation or overcrowded; to amend the provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Acts, 1925 to 1935, relating to insanitary dwelling-houses; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act of the present Session '), it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament:—
A. Of such expenses as may be incurred by the Department of Health for Scotland (hereinafter referred to as 'the Department')
(1) in making contributions towards any expenses incurred by a local authority in providing under Part III of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1925, housing accommodation for the agricultural population, in so far as such accommodation is provided with the approval of the Department, in houses the erection of which has been, or is, begun on or after the third day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven, so however that such a contribution shall be of such amount, not being less than ten pounds ten shillings, as the Department may with the sanction of the Treasury determine, payable annually for a period of forty years in respect of each house provided with the approval of the Department:
Provided that the amount of the contribution payable in respect of any house shall not exceed fifteen pounds unless the Department are satisfied that the annual expenditure likely to be incurred by the county council in respect of the house is, in consequence of the remoteness of the site thereof from centres of supply of building labour and material, substantially greater than the equivalent of nineteen pounds ten shillings per annum for forty years;
(2) in making contributions towards any expenses incurred with the approval of the Department by a local authority in giving assistance on application made within five years after the passing of the said Act of the present Session (such assistance being given by way of payment of a lump sum not exceeding either (a) one half of the cost of the house; or (b) one hundred and sixty pounds in the case of a house containing three apartments, or two hundred pounds in the case of a house containing more than three apartments) for the provision of housing accommodation in new houses in replacement of—
(a) houses or premises which, being unfit for human habitation are not capable at a reasonable expense of being rendered so fit, are to be demolished or closed under Part II of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, and which are—


(i) houses, or other premises' situated on a farm and occupied in accordance with their contracts of service by agricultural workers employed thereon; or
(ii) houses occupied by owner occupiers of farms who are of substantially the same economic condition as agricultural workers or by statutory small tenants, or by landholders; or
(iii) houses in the Highlands and Islands occupied by members of the agricultural population who are of substantially the same economic condition as landholders;
(b) houses or other premises situated on a farm and occupied in accordance with their contracts of. service by agricultural workers employed thereon, which are not in all respects fit for human habitation or are overcrowded and which by the execution of works of reconstruction will be combined with adjoining occupied houses or premises and will cease to he occupied as separate houses or premises;
So, however, that such a contribution shall be made by way of annual payments for a period of forty years from the completion of the house in respect of which assistance is given, and shall be of an amount equal, in any case where assistance is given, in respect of any such house as is mentioned in sub-paragraphs (ii) or (iii) of the foregoing paragraph (a) which is situated in the Highlands and Islands, to seven-eighths, and in any other case in which assistance is given to three-quarters of the estimated average annual payments falling to be made by the local authority in respect of the charges on account of loans raised by them for the purposes of payments made by way of assistance, or which would have fallen to he made if the sums so expended by them had been raised by means of loans.
B. Of such additional sums as may become payable under section twenty-three of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, or under section thirty of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935, by reason of any provision of the said Act of the present Session amending section thirty-three of the said Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935, so as to apply to the contributions referred to in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph A of this Resolution;
C. Of such additional expenses as may be incurred by the Department by reason of any provision of the said Act of the present Session that the provisions of Part II. of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, relating to insanitary dwelling-houses shall have effect in relation to premises occupied by agricultural workers in like manner as if they were dwelling-houses notwithstanding that the premises are used for sleeping purposes only.
For the purposes of this Resolution the expression 'agricultural population' means persons who are or in their latest occupation were engaged in agriculture or in an in

dustry mainly dependent on agriculture, and includes the dependants of such persons as aforesaid; the expression 'agriculture' means the use of land for agricultural or pastoral purposes or for the purposes of poultry-farming or market-gardening or as an orchard or woodlands or for the purpose of afforestation; the expression 'Highlands and Islands' means the counties of Argyll, Caithness, Inverness, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland, Orkney and Zetland; and the expressions 'landholder' and 'statutory small tenant' have the meanings assigned to them by the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1931."—[King's Recommendation signified.]—[The Lord Advocate.]

9.47 P.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. T. M. Cooper): In view of the full discussion which took place on the Second Reading of the Bill last Tuesday, the Committee will not expect me to speak in support of this Resolution at any length, but there is one point in regard to which I think the Committee are entitled to a brief explanation. It will be remembered that the Bill to which the House gave a Second Reading last week was deliberately drawn in such a way as to confine the benefits of Parts I and II to county councils, and that that limitation in the scope of the Bill was marked from its title right through to the last Clause. In the interval my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has been examining this problem and who has been in Scotland for some little time, has come to the conclusion that the question whether burgh authorities should or should not be brought: within the scope of the Bill is a question which might properly be made the subject of discussion in Committee if an Amendment appropriate to raise that issue is put down.
For that purpose, and in order to ensure that any such Amendment could be discussed, the Resolution now before the Committee is in a slightly different form from the Resolution which appeared on the Order Paper last week. I need not explain in detail what the alterations are, but they amount to this, that wherever in the old Resolution a reference was made to county councils, that reference has been deleted and there has been substituted for it a reference to "the local authority". As the Committee will see, the effect of that is still further to widen the Resolution and to make possible in the Committee upstairs a discussion which would otherwise have been out of


order. I am sure that the Committee will welcome that widening of the scope of the Resolution, and will accept the Resolution.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. T. Johnston: I am exceedingly glad that the Government have accepted the proposition which we on this side put to them last week that there should be a widening of the terms of the Bill so as to remove the hardships which would inevitably have arisen had the Bill remained as it was when first introduced. Despite the fact that the Under-Secretary of State refused to accede to our appeals last week, it is now obvious that the Government, on second thoughts, have decided to give us an opportunity in Committee to bring in under the benefits of this Bill farms in the landward areas of the burghs. Under the Bill as it originally was, and indeed as it still stands, the benefits accrue only to farm workers and proprietors in the counties.
It is obvious that the city of Edinburgh, which has a large number of farms within its boundaries, would have found itself in the position that farm workers inside its area would not receive the benefits of this Bill, whereas farm workers on the other side of an imaginary line in the county would receive the benefits. A week ago we submitted that that was an untenable and unjustifiable distinction, and I am exceedingly glad that the Government have so drafted the Money Resolution that it will be possible for us on the Committee stage to make Amendments in the Measure which will enable farm workers all over the country to receive whatever benefits are possible under this Measure.
We are still waiting for an explanation from the Government—I am sorry that the Lord Advocate did not give it to us to-night—as to why they entitle the Bill in such a way as solely to provide better housing for the agricultural population. Doubtless the Lord Advocate will have turned up the definition that was given in the 1931 Act, the only rural housing Act of which advantage has been taken in rural Scotland. The Committee on Rural Housing reported that our Act of 1931, although it was on the Statute Book only for a few months before financial necessities caused it to be stopped, succeeded in having built nearly 500

houses and that—I speak from memory—about 1,700 or 1,800 applications were sent to the Department of Health by the local authorities under that Measure. Under no other Act have the counties of Scotland found it possible to build houses in any number at all for the rural population. The 1931 Act was deliberately defined as being an Act to provide better housing for agricultural workers and for persons whose economic condition was substantially the same as that of such workers.
I beg the Government, even at this late hour, to consider whether it would not be better to adopt our definition of 1931 rather than the limited definition which still remains in this Bill. As it now stands, the Bill will exclude from the benefits of this better rural housing such workers as rural postmen, roadmen, and so on, persons who cannot be said to be agricultural workers or to be in an industry mainly dependent upon agriculture. They will be excluded under this Bill, whereas under the 1931 Act all those classes of workers were brought in by the title and terms of the Measure.
There are other details in the Bill which we find it difficult to understand. Our experience prior to 1931 was that there were rural areas, particularly in the far north, where county councils, owing to high prices of material, cost of labour, difficulties of transport and so forth, found it impossible to get contractors to build houses for the rural working classes at reasonable figures. Particulars were given in last week's Debate of extraordinary disparities in prices. We were told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) that a three-apartment house had been built, I think he said quite recently, in Sutherland at a cost of £680. The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) gave figures to show that houses were being built in an English district at £352, while in the Midlands of Scotland the same type of house is costing £492.
In face of these disparities it is obvious that the provision which we imported into the 1931 Act, giving the Department power, at the request of the local authorities, to build houses, to purchase materials, to employ labour, and to go over the heads of the contractors, was a


very wise provision. It was welcomed by most, if not all the county councils concerned. I regret that the Government have not seen fit to take advantage of that provision, having regard to experience prior to 1931. Before 1931 there were 14 counties in Scotland which had not built a house with Government assistance under any Act. They had been unable to do so. We created a graduated financial arrangement and the local authorities accepted it gladly. They built houses under it and it was only the financial crisis of 1931 which checked the operation of that Measure. Now the Government are offering subsidies to county councils varying from £10 10s. to £15 per house, but the subsidies which the authorities are already receiving average from £13 to £15 per house. On the average, they will gain nothing under the terms of the bill.
I repeat what I said a week ago that it would be more profitable for an authority to build new houses under the 1930 Slum Clearance Act where it is replacing dwellings in which there are more than four units. If there are more than four units, it would pay a local authority to build under the 1930 Act instead of under this Act. I do not think that there is anything unjust or unreasonable in our request. We are at a loss to know how the Government propose to define the persons who are to benefit by this Bill. The questions which were addressed to the Government on this subject a week ago cannot be dodged. Will the Lord Advocate or any representative of the Government tell us what they mean by people who are mainly dependent upon agriculture or were so dependent in their last occupation? Is the auctioneer at the market, for instance, who is perhaps a wealthy man, to be given a subsidised house under this Measure? He is employed in an occupation mainly dependent upon agriculture.

Mr. McGovern: Or the Minister?

Mr. Johnston: I do not know about that, but I wish to put this point because it is rather important. Do the Government propose to allow such people as auctioneers into these new houses while they bar roadmen, postmen, small shopkeepers, and other people of that class? If so. they start out with a grave in-

justice and it will do a great deal to wreck the good will which is necessary, if this Measure is to be operated successfully. I am amazed that the Government have not seen fit to state precisely and accurately what they mean by the words in Clause 19 defining "agricultural population"—that is, the population which is to benefit by this Measure. The Clause says:
'agricultural population' means persons who are or in their latest occupation were engaged in agriculture or in an industry mainly dependent on agriculture, and includes the dependants of such persons as aforesaid.
What does that mean? We should not allow a Measure of this kind to go through without a very careful definition of what is intended. No one rejoices more readily than I do that the right hon. Gentleman has prevailed upon his friends and got the scope of the Measure slightly widened so as to bring in farms in the landward areas of burghs. But I marvel that the Treasury should have allowed a Clause to slip through which would enable auctioneers, middlemen, butchers and others to get new houses subsidised to the extent of 15 per annum, for 40 years it may be, while postmen and roadmen are barred. I trust that hon. Members in all parts of the House will reinforce our appeal for a full explanation before we part with this Resolution.
We asked a week ago and we ask again what about the other unanimous recommendations of the Rural Housing Committee which are not embodied in this Bill? Is it to be obligatory upon any proprietor who gets assistance under this Measure to put water closets in the new houses? That was a recommendation of the Committee, but as I read the Bill he is only to put in water closets if it is reasonably practicable to do so. We know what that means in the rural counties of Scotland. We know that county councils will discover innumerable reasons why it is not "reasonably practicable." You will be faced with a situation in which you are putting up public money for the creation of new dwellings, without having the minimum requirements of civilisation in those dwellings wherever a county council declares that such provision is not" reasonably practicable." It is true that the Department of Health has to be satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable, but


the Department has found itself unable in the past to compel these county councils to adopt even the minimum sanitary requirements which have been provided in this country for many years past. I also regard the absence even of the panel of skilled persons recommended by the Rural Housing Committee to adjudicate or act as a buffer between the county councils and the Department of Health as a further blot upon the Bill.
We were told a week ago by the Under-Secretary of State that the Government bluntly refused to accede to the recommendation of the Association of Public Valuers that in future the owner of a subsidised house should get preferential treatment in rent over the owner of a house put up with his own money. Today, as things stand, the man who puts up a house with his own money may have his value jumped according to the amount of the rent, but the proprietor of the house that is subsidised with public money has his valuation strictly limited, and the contract is so grotesque, the injustice so obvious, that even the Association of Public Valuers has recommended that this distinction should no longer be permitted. We were told a week ago that the Government flatly refused to accede to that recommendation, and I think we ought to have a more reasoned answer given us on this point.
Again, why do not the Government put in a provision that a farm servant should not be evicted from a tied house unless for a breach of contract during his tenancy of service? That is the unanimous recommendation of the committee, but the Government have not implemented that recommendation and the other recommendations about which I have spoken, and I think they are remiss in their duty to this House, to the country, and even to their own Rural Housing Committee in not giving us an adequate explanation why they have declined to implement these very reasonable recommendations. We trust that if the Government cannot meet us entirely on the problem of the tied house, they will at least do something to bridge the difference between us.
We admit that there are cases of stockmen whose house must be near their place of employment, or, in other words, on the farm, and that when a man's

contract of service is over, he must make way for a new worker who is going to look after the animals. We have argued that all these houses should be publicly owned, owned by the local authority, and no longer remain in the possession of a private individual. Such a proposal would have this great advantage, that the farm worker living in a municipal cottage, even if it were a tied house, tied to the farm, would then have his remedy, as every other citizen has, against a local authority which failed to provide him with the sanitary provision which every other citizen can demand from the local authority. As things are now, the privately-owned tied house means that the farm worker cannot look to the farmer for redress against leaking roofs, damp walls, lack of sanitary provisions, lack of suitable drainage, or lack of water supply. The farmer does not own it—it is the landlord who owns it—and where the farmer is one person and the landlord another, the farmworker has no redress.
We stress very strongly the argument that new houses provided from public money should remain in public ownership and should not be given as a subsidy to private owners to increase the value of their farms, the selling value of their property, which they get subsidised to the extent of 87½ per cent., so that the rest of the community have to pay correspondingly more in local rates because some proprietors are getting away with this increased booty. We say that that should be stopped, and if the Government cannot meet us 100 per cent., surely they can agree that, before the owner of a rotten tied house which is to be knocked down and a new one provided gets a grant of public money, the Department of Health must be satisfied that there is no practicable or reasonable alternative by which the county council can provide the accommodation in an adjacent village. Surely that is a reasonable proposition.
The Under-Secretary told us a week ago that in the rural areas we might have tied houses dotted here and there along the roads and that they would be very difficult to manage. Let that be proven to the Department of Health, but do not allow the door to be opened for the spending of public funds for the further accretion of the value of private property. Do not let us open the door to the development of the system of tied houses under which


the farm worker is regarded as a citizen who is forbidden to have the customary rights to sanitation which all other citizens have. We do not intend to divide the House on the Money Resolution because we are anxious that whatever benefits there are in this Bill in the provision of houses in our villages shall be speedily obtained, but we ask that the right hon. Gentleman or someone on behalf of the Government will explain fully and clearly the exact implications of the Bill and answer the points that I have made.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The compromise suggested by the right hon. Gentleman in regard to tied cottages is an interesting one which opens up many possibilities. I am sure that everyone on this side would like to meet the right hon. Gentleman as far as possible in this Bill, which has as its object something we all desire. I think, however, that there will be practical difficulties, apart from those mentioned by the Under-Secretary on the previous occasion. Let the right hon. Gentleman imagine the case of a ploughman in a county-council-owned tied cottage. When the ploughman leaves his employment he will have to leave the cottage. Suppose the farmer does for a time without a man or uses his son or employs a single person. The house will be vacant all that time, and I can imagine the county council being unhappy about taking a responsibility of that kind. That is what makes me unable to accept the views of the right hon. Gentleman. warmly support him in the plea he made for a closer definition of the persons who are to be helped by this Bill, I raised the point in the Second Reading Debate, and the Committee ought to remember what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in reply to my remarks:
I gave some examples exactly similar to those my hon. Friend has mentioned. I mentioned the village smith, the wheelwright, and the carpenter. I do not think that the shopkeeper would come in, as it would be very difficult to say that the shopkeeper was in an industry mainly dependent upon agriculture.
Then he referred to the matter which has been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman:
Although it may be difficult to define the phrase—all these phrases are difficult to define and like the phrase persons of substantially the same economic conditions 'would not be any less difficult…—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1937; cols. 1686–7 Vol. 328.]

I do not agree with my right hon. Friend. I feel that the phrase, "persons of substantially the same economic conditions" is more readily understood than "agricultural population" when that is defined as meaning persons "engaged in agriculture or in an industry mainly dependent on agriculture." I urge the Government between now and the Report stage to consider amending the Title of the Bill so as to substitute the words" persons of substantially the same economic conditions "for the words "agricultural population." There is no dispute as to the kind of person we are all anxious to help. He is the person in the small country village, and it would be unfortunate and against the purpose of the Government if the words they used as a definition turned out to be such as to keep a considerable number of these persons outside the Bill.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I asked a question during the Second Reading of the Bill and I am rather afraid that the Money Resolution will not prove to be elastic enough to cover the point I then raised, which was concerned with sanitation. Before I deal with that I should like to emphasise the importance of getting a clear definition of rural workers, for road men, postmen and railway workers in rural areas often live under the most wretched housing conditions. The rural housing position was described by the Secretary of State for Scotland one evening as "shocking" and "a scandal," and that observation applies not only to the conditions for agricultural workers, although they suffer terribly, but to these other workers who follow a variety of occupations in the rural areas. Some of the railwaymen at small wayside stations have just an apology for a place in which to live, and I think there can be no objection to the proposal which has been made for a reasonable definition of rural workers in these cases.
Then I have just a word to say about tied houses. I cannot understand the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) playing about with the question of whether a council will be annoyed because it has been left with a house for which there is no occupant. Even if the man has left one employer it may be possible for him to remain in the house in his new job. But that is not my point. Members on the other side


talk repeatedly about the need for encouraging sturdy independence in the people. If we on this side make any suggestion for helping the workers they say "For Heaven's sake protect their sturdy independence." Will any hon. Members tell me that a man can enjoy sturdy independence in a tied house? Let them look at the position in any agricultural or mining area where there are tied houses. How is it possible to get sturdy independence when—in some places—a man dare not say a word or he will find himself out of the house and his wife and children thrown out into the road? Inconveniences may arise at particular moments, and some houses may stand empty for a month or two, but that is better than having a house occupied by a man who does not feel that he is master of his own home and can be turned out at the will of some particular employer.
I come now to the real point which I wish to raise as being one which I feel may be affected by this Financial Resolution. In the Bill there is a reference not only to water closets but to baths. They have to be installed unless it is not reasonably possible to get the necessary water supply. I did not get an opportunity to speak on Second Reading, but I asked a question to draw attention to the fact that, no matter where a house is, it is reasonably possible to instal a bath and a water closet. It may cost money to do so, but we are starting to build houses for the agricultural population in order to bring them into line with what is recognised as modern civilisation, and if we are building a house—I do not care in what part of the country—we ought to put in a bathroom, whether it will mean an extension of the grant or not. Will anyone get up from the Treasury Bench and say "No, if it is going to be unreasonable—in the view of some backward county council or reactionary landlord—no facilities for baths will be provided"?
If no facilities are provided for bathing does that mean that the people will not bath themselves? You are not encouraging them, but the mother will bath her children. She may have to use a tub in an ordinary room, but no one will tell me that a family of children are never going to be bathed, in the new houses or in any houses. If you recognise the necessity

for children to be bathed regularly as an essential factor in the preservation of health you have to provide the bathroom. The reports made by medical officers of health in the Fife area dealing with rural housing draw attention to the fact that much of the disease and the trouble that affect families arises from the fact that there is no proper sanitation and that the houses still have dry closets attached to them.
I made it my business when I went home during the week-end to consult a specialist in sanitation and to go over some of the important literature on sanitation. I studied how bathrooms can be put in. It is quite a simple matter. The method of heating the water, which might have to be carried, can be done through a boiler arranged so that there can always be hot water for the purposes of the mother and the family. On the question of the closet there is no need whatever for the awful and unspeakable relic of the past, the dry closet, in any new house that is being built. I discussed this matter, and had worked out for me the whole question of how to operate the water closet in rural areas. It is operated already by the well-to-do people who live out in some of the country districts where there is no drainage. Do they have dry closets? No, they have water closets and an effective filtering system for their sewage. This can all be worked out. it is absolutely essential that the provisions to which the Minister referred, which withheld bathrooms and sanitation, must be removed. No matter what it will cost extra, even if it means an extension of the Financial Resolution, it must be understood that the rural workers must have the same conditions as the workers in the towns and cities. The new houses must be started on right lines with a bathroom in every house and sanitation that will allow the maximum of health and cleanliness for all the people who occupy the houses.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Watson: I have no intention of covering the ground chosen by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston), but I would remind the Committee of a discussion that took place on the Second Reading of the Bill when it was maintained, not only on this side but on the other side, that before provision was brought forward for housing agricul-


tural workers schemes should have been encouraged by the Government for water supply and drainage. If the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) expects that all the new houses to be built under this Measure will be provided with sanitation and a water supply, he is expecting more than is likely to happen for a long time. We have had no indication from the Government yet that they are prepared to assist the local authorities to provide water supplies or drainage systems in the rural areas. The county councils, in particular, will not be doing their duty if they do not erect houses speedily under this Measure, although in those new houses there is neither a water supply nor proper sanitary arrangements apart from dry closets or something of the kind. This Measure will enable farmers, landowners and county councils to erect houses in rural areas where at the moment there is neither a water supply nor a drainage system, and the houses will be built without either.
These, however, are matters that we can discuss when the Bill goes before a Committee. I merely rise to-night to express my pleasure at the announcement of the Lord Advocate. My main reason for intervening on the last occasion was to make a plea that burghs which had agricultural land within their areas should be brought within the scope of this new Measure. My constituency is not an agricultural constituency, but, as I said before, there is one burgh in the constituency that has within it a very large agricultural area. When, at the instigation of the Government, the burgh of Dunfermline extended its boundaries to include the part of Fife County known as Rosyth, it took in a very large agricultural area, and at that time we were assured by the Admiralty that there was to be built in Fife a second Portsmouth. That has not come about yet, and within the burgh there is a large agricultural area. It is not the only burgh in Scotland which during recent years has added agricultural land to its area.
I welcome the statement of the Lord Advocate that the Money Resolution has been so drawn that it will be possible in Committee on the Bill to move Amendments to provide that burghs shall be recognised as authorities entitled to take advantage of the Act. When the Under-Secretary of State wound up the Debate

on the Second Reading, he said that no prospect could be held out that that concession would be given to the burghs, but it will be up to us on this side of the House to see that Amendments are put on the Order Paper for the Committee stage of the Bill to extend the advantages of the Measure to burghs that have within their areas agricultural land.
Within the confines of Glasgow, Edinburgh and other large burghs in Scotland, there are a large number of agricultural workers. There is no reason why a burgh authority should not be in a position to take advantage of this Act for providing proper housing accommodation for its agricultural workers. In all probability, it is either within or just on the confines of these burghs that we may have houses built by county councils. It may be possible, where a county council can take advantage of a burgh water supply or drainage system, to have these things brought into the new housing schemes. In a great many of the agricultural districts of Scotland, we shall be having these new houses built, under Act of Parliament, without a proper water supply or drainage system. However, I welcome the announcement of the Lord Advocate. It will be our duty to see that the proper Amendments are put down in committee to ensure that burgh councils are to have the same advantages as county councils if they have agricultural workers within their boundaries.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. Westwood: I shall endeavour to avoid repetition of anything that has been said by any previous speaker. That will not be a difficult job, when we are discussing a problem of such interest to Scotland and of such complexity as the provision of houses for local districts in Scotland. There is no opposition on this side of the House to any legitimate or even generous, proposals for dealing with this problem of housing. If we have any complaint against the Financial Resolution, or the Bill on which it is based, it is in respect to their lack of generosity towards the local authorities in making the necessary financial provision. On the Second Reading of the Bill I emphasised the fact, which I must emphasise again to-night, that there are local authorities which are not facing up to their responsibilities in regard to the provision of houses


in the rural areas. I emphasised that we still have a terrific problem in dealing with unfit houses.
Under the 1930 Act, far better provision is made than in the Financial Resolution we are now discussing. For a three-apartment house, £13 15s., I think, is the provision; for a four-apartment house, £19 5s.; and for a five-apartment house, £24 15s. I repeat what I said on the Second Reading, that financial provision of that kind will not induce the local authorities to do their duty. Financial provision such as is contained in the Resolution now before the House will not provide the houses for rural Scotland which are so desirable at present. I must emphasise, in dealing with the point made by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart), that we are not opposed, when it is proved to be necessary, to the provision of the tied house. I can visualise positions in which it is absolutely impossible to avoid having the tied house, but that tied house can be owned by the public authorities, and there is no justification for handing out public money to the owners of private property for the purpose of maintaining the tied-house system.
I am justified in that conclusion by the fact that committee after committee that has been appointed by Government after Government has reported against the tied-house system being under the control of private employers, and in favour of public ownership, where tied houses are necessary. My right hon. Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston), on the Second Reading of the Bill, gave quotations from the reports of these committees. I would remind the Committee that 20 years ago a Departmental Committee reported that:
The local authorities should build such houses"—
I am dealing with houses for agricultural workers and tied houses—
and let them to tenants. In any event we cannot believe that public sentiment will permit of public funds being used to erect houses whose occupation shall be in the absolute control of the employer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th November, 1937, col. 1645, Vol. 328.]
That was not a Socialist committee set up by my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee, but one that was set up by a Government that was not Socialist, and the committee was composed of in-

dividuals who were not Socialists. They definitely reported against public funds being used to erect houses whose occupation should be in the absolute control of the employer. The Inter-Departmental Committee on Tied Cottages, Command Paper 4148, stated that there are 50 to 60 per cent. of agricultural workers in England living in tied houses, and in Scotland between 95 and 97 per cent. The committee went on to say:
Landowners and farmers should not continue to be responsible for housing.
Why should housing be a charge upon any industry whether it be the agricultural industry, the mining industry or any other industry? Housing ought to be the responsibility of the State and the local authority, and, to get rid of the private ownership of houses particularly in its application to industry, tied houses ought not to be under the control of private ownership, and if tied houses are necessary they ought to be under public control. On page 14 of that report it states in a footnote:
A witness for the Central Landowners' Association in England came before the Committee, and said that tied houses were only essential in the case of stockmen.
We want in the passing of this Financial Resolution, and when the remaining stages of the Bill are under discussion, tied houses to be reduced to the very minimum, and where tied houses are necessary, that they must be publicly owned and under the control of the county council. The Committee on Farm Workers in Scotland, under Lord Caithness, was set up in 1936, and reported in the following terms:
We suggest that such houses"—
namely, tied houses—
should be retained under the control of the local authority and should be let at a rent sufficiently small to be within the reach of the ordinary farm worker.
All the evidence collected from the committees that have been set up by the respective Government Departments justifies the attitude taken by His Majesty's Opposition in dealing with this particular problem. It is true to state that most of our housing legislation in the past has been inspired mainly by our urban needs, and we on this side of the Committee welcome any legislative proposals that will concentrate the attention of this House and the country on the need for


dealing with the problem of rural housing. Housing is essentially a social problem of the first magnitude and many factors besides sanitary conditions of individual houses must be considered. That fact justifies the claim that we are making. Tied houses ought to be under the control of the local authority, because there are varying conditions in connection with agriculture. I am quoting from a document sent to the Members of this House from Dumfriesshire, in which they state that:
A statement of the number and location of defective property is not a sufficient presentation of the problem, nor is the substitution of sanitary for insanitary dwellings in itself an adequate solution. In rural areas the relation between the number of people who can find employment in, and therefore should he housed in, a given area, is much closer than in the towns. Important changes in the conditions affecting that relationship have occurred in many rural districts in recent years. Chief amongst these, perhaps, is the substitution of motor for horse transport, which has largely removed the reason for the existence of some villages and hamlets, formerly useful centres of communal life. Changes such as that from arable to dairy farming necessarily affect housing.
These are all arguments in favour of the line adopted on these benches, in which we object to the use of public money for bolstering up private ownership of housing.
There is a further point on the Bill about which I should like to complain. One of the big difficulties in administration is the great number of Acts that local authorities have to use. The time has long past for a complete codification of the laws affecting health administration. Here is a new Housing Bill, and there is no provision made for codification of the Housing Acts to enable local authorities to read and understand them thoroughly when they are dealing with the problem of administration. Financial provision is only made for dealing with houses as such. Unfortunately, no reference is made to the need of grants for drainage and water supplies, questions which have been discussed repeatedly. The County Council of Dumfries say that
This council recognise fully that there is a large number of houses in the landward area of this county which, if not demolished, ought to be reconstructed or improved very materially. They are also quite definitely of opinion that houses of the present-day standard of habitability cannot be provided by erection or reconstruction or improvement in any area in which an adequate, water supply is not available.

They also say:
The housing difficulties are largely increased by the want of drainage in villages.
Village after village is affected. As I said on the Second Reading, we shall never be able to solve the housing problem in rural Scotland unless or until we not only have a Financial Resolution of the kind we are discussing to-night, but a Financial Resolution that will make adequate provision in our rural areas for proper water supply and for an adequate drainage system, to enable us to house our people in rural Scotland as well as we are trying to house them under the Housing Acts in the urban areas.

10.49 p.m.

The Lord Advocate: The Debate has made two things abundantly plain. The first thing made plain is that in their heart of hearts everybody in all parts of the House wants this Bill on the Statute Book as quickly as possible. In the second place, when the Bill goes upstairs the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills will fully maintain its reputation for ingenuity and resource in the way of Amendment. Quite a number of the topics alluded to by hon. Members and to which I was invited to direct my attention do seem to me to be essentially Committee points, appropriate to be debated and discussed there and, if approved, embodied in the Bill. There is one exception to that to which I shall come back in a moment, which affects the topic raised by the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) because he suggested a widening of the definition of agricultural population which, while it is not for me to say, seemed to me of very doubtful competency. Certain points raised by the hon. Member for East Fife and the hon. Gentleman who opened for the Opposition seemed to me to be entirely appropriate for the amendment of the Bill but not, if I may say so with respect, wholly appropriate for discussion on the Financial Resolution with which the Committee is concerned at the moment.

Mr. Gallacher: Suppose we moved an Amendment directed towards conditions where there is the greatest difficulty in drainage and water supply, and where very considerable cost would be involved. Would that be permissible under the terms of the Financial Resolution?

The Lord Advocate: As I understand the hon. Member's point it would be competent for him in my judgment to raise that in Committee, and I think that on page 1717 of the OFFICIAL RRPORT of the proceedings on Second Reading my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary so informed the hon. Member. But to proceed with one or two of the points which were raised in the shape of questions, and which I should like to answer, let me take in the first place the question of the definition of agricultural population. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. T. Johnston) was concerned to limit the definition of agricultural population with a view to excluding such persons as auctioneers or even ministers and certain other types of persons, who, he thought, no doubt with justification, ought not to be included. On the other hand the hon. Member for East Fife, as I understood him, was concerned to expand the definition with a view to making it more or less co-extensive with the occupants of the typical small country village in Scotland. Obviously, these are two quite contrary views.

Mr. Johnston: No, the point I was trying to get at was that we had a definition in the Scottish Rural Housing Bill in 1931, and it seemed to me to be wide enough to bring in everybody who is engaged in agriculture. That is what I am trying to get at. Whereas what the Government have done now is to wipe out the economic stake and to keep agriculture to mean anyone who is or may be dependent on agriculture, which might bring in very wealthy people, but would exclude people like roadmen and postmen.

The Lord Advocate: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I was endeavouring to put the same idea. But in a sense I am right when I say that he wanted the definition to be so restricted as to exclude certain categories mentioned just now, whereas the hon. Member for East Fife is more concerned with securing that the definition should be expanded so as to include people in villages. But be that as it may, how does the matter stand? While the decision necessarily does not and will not rest with me, I know of nothing in the Financial Resolution which will prevent any hon. Member on the Committee stage from proposing an Amendment to

narrow the definition of the Bill. I do not think a proposal to extend the definition would be in order, as that would mean an increased charge on the Exchequer.
But the wider answer is this. Rightly or wrongly—I of course say rightly—the conception which underlies the Bill, as of all Housing Bills, is that it is an instalment towards the solution of a wide problem which has been attacked from many angles, and which will always have to be attacked step by step, and stage by stage. This Bill is an instalment designed to deal with the agricultural population, and it is designed on an occupational basis. It is not intended for the benefit of miners or railwaymen. It is intended for the benefit of the agricultural population; this is clear from the design of the Bill, from its long Title to the last Clause it contains. The idea which justifies the selection of this area for benefit is that the agricultural population of Scotland is found not in aggregations, whether of villages, towns or cities, but in sporadic dwellings which cannot be dealt with by the ordinary machinery of the Housing Acts. That is the broad justification for the scheme of the Bill, and while I do not wish to commit myself nor could I commit myself, I think the Bill is capable of amendment in the way of restricting the definition in the Bill—to that extent the matter is open for discussion—but it would be outside the scope of the Bill to make it cover not only the agricultural population but some wider sections of the population for whom provision is made or ought to be made in one or other of the existing Housing Acts or in some future statute.
Some hon. Members have complained of the inadequacy of the subsidy as contrasted with that under the 1930 Act. I have been looking into that question, and it is important to note that the figures which have been suggested by the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) as being capable of being earned under the 1930 Act can be earned only if a relatively large number of persons are being displaced by rehousing effected under the Act. For example the figure he gave of £24 15s. for a five-apartment house can only be earned if a large number of units are displaced. As a matter of fact, the average subsidy actually earned under


the 1930 Act has been £13 15s. Theoretically you can get the fancy figures of which the hon. Member spoke but the actual subsidy earned on the average has been £13 15s. and hon. Members will bear in mind that after the Bill has reached the Statute Book it will still be open to a local authority to operate the Act of 1930 so that they can earn a subsidy under both, thereby increasing the total subsidy which they will be given.

Mr. Johnston: Would the local authority, under the 1930 Act, be able to provide a tied house?

The Lord Advocate: No, not under the 1930 Act.

Mr. Johnston: Does the right hon. Gentleman see what follows from that? If there are more than four units in a dilapidated house which is to be destroyed and a new house built in its place, the local authority will be the loser.

The Lord Advocate: The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the reference to the tied house, is thinking, is he not, of Part II of the Bill, and not of Part I? Under neither Act would the local authority provide a tied house, although under this Act a grant will be made under which private enterprise will provide a tied house. I want to correct the suggestion that there is to be any direct building of tied houses by local, authorities. Two hon. Members referred to the absence from the Money Resolution and the Bill of references to water and drainage, the provision of which is so essential as a basis for housing in many rural areas in Scotland. Again, the answer is very much the same as the answer I gave on another point. It would be entirely inappropriate to include such provisions in this Measure, which is an instalment of the housing programme, and to describe as a housing subsidy what is truly a water or drainage subsidy. A Measure for the provision, whether with Exchequer assistance or not, of regional water supplies or regional drainage belongs to a different chapter of legislation, and not to housing legislation. When an hon. Member complained that provision for that is not made in this Bill, what he really complained about was that another Measure has not been brought before the House to deal with that.
On the Second Reading Debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the House that this problem is one which is receiving his active consideration, as I know it is; and while no pledges or undertakings of any kind can be given as regards the future, the Committee will appreciate that that problem will be necessarily very much in the minds of those responsible for the administration of public health in Scotland. I think I have answered all the points which can be answered and which are not likely to be raised in a suitable form for discussion in the Committee upstairs. In view of the very full consideration which the Measure and the Money Resolution have now received, I hope the Committee is prepared to accept the Resolution.

Mr. Mathers: Although strictly this point does not come under the Money Resolution, cannot the right hon. Gentleman say a word in response to inquiries that have been made as to the Government's intention with regard to a codification of housing legislation in Scotland, a point which was raised on the Second Reading and on the Money Resolution?

The Lord Advocate: The Committee are doubtless aware that during the last few years a good deal has been done in regard to the codification of various groups of Statutes. I am not in a position to give any kind of assurance, but I have not the slightest doubt that the codification of housing Statutes is bound to be a matter which will be taken up by my right hon. Friend in a comparatively short time. It is in the natural course of events that a codification of housing Acts is bound to be undertaken soon, but I am not in a position to give any assurance.

Resolution to be reported upon Thursday.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.